Contact: JOHN KLOTZ Return to Klotz Law Homepage

Summation:People v. Dupont

        MR. KLOTZ: May it please the Court, ladies and gentlemen of the 
                  jury. At the beginning of this case you heard opening 
                  statements from Mr. Wilson and myself. My opening 
                  statement to you was: `Thank God, opening statements 
                  aren't evidence.' 
                  There are many things that were said about what 
                  was going to happen in this case which haven't 
                  happened. We have to concentrate on what has 
                  happened and what has been proven and this is what 
                  we have to address ourselves. If there were some 
                  things said about the defendant or anybody else in 
                  opening statements, those are not before you, 
                  they're not in evidence, they mean nothing.  For 
                  whatever reason, they were not proceeded upon. 
                  This is not a case of Richard Dupont vs. the 
                  District Attorney or John Klotz vs. Roy Cohn, and 
                  ultimately it's not even a case of Roy Cohn vs. 
                  Richard Dupont. Ultimately there's only one issue 
                  or twelve issues in this case, that's Richard 
                  Dupont and his responsibility as instructed by the 
                  Court for the acts that remain in the indictment.  
                  When this is all over, you're going to return to 
                  your normal affairs, your normal business and the 
                  District Attorney, the Judge and myself, we turn  
                  to other cases or other endeavors.  But only 
                  Richard Dupont is going to be left with the re-
                  sults of your deliberations from now and for the 
                  rest of his life and into eternity.  And it is a 
                  very special moment for him and for all of us in 
                  another context. 
                  Before we do anything else, I'd like to, if I can, 
                  give the bare outlines of the matter before us 
                  without any controversial, disputed things at all 
                  so that we have a common context or frame of 
                  reference of what we're talking about. 
                  I don't think that it can be disputed that in 
                  1976, Richard Dupont sought to establish a busi-
                  ness enterprise in 644 Greenwich Avenue, a build-
                  ing down in the Village, eventually called "Big 
                  Gym" and that Dupont entered into a contract to 
                  purchase the mortgage of the building. That con-
                  tract is in evidence. 
                  Perhaps as a lawyer, I should do my best to ex-
                  plain what all this means. Again, the law basical-
                  ly comes from the judge. It's a very peripheral 
                  issue, it really isn't an issue at all. When a 
                  person has a mortgage on a building he has the 
                  right to collect monies that are due under the 
                  mortgage and then if the money is not paid, he 
                  forecloses the mortgage and the property is of-
                  fered for public sale. People can come and bid. It 
                  must be a public sale. It must be held, notices 
                  must be published etc. The proceeds of the sale to 
                  do not necessarily go to the mortgage holder. The 
                  mortgage holder is only entitled to receive what 
                  is due him on  the mortgage and the rest of the 
                  proceeds, in theory, are used to pay off other 
                  creditors and if any money is left beyond that it 
                  goes to the mortgagor, the person who borrowed the 
                  money to begin with. That's the theory. 
                  As a practical matter, in many cases, at the 
                  public sale, the mortgage holder bids in the 
                  amount of his mortgage. In other words, in this 
                  case, the mortgage holder was owed three hundred 
                  and fifty thousand or thereabouts, that's not 
                  really a serious issue. The referee bangs his 
                  gavel, sells the property. The mortgage holder 
                  makes his bid. Therefore, if anybody wants else 
                  wants to buy the property they have to bid more 
                  than that. 
                  What Dupont sought to buy in '76 (and it's pretty 
                  clear what Zucker eventually bought in the latter 
                  stages) was the right of the mortgage holder. In 
                  other words, the right to go and bid the amount of 
                  the mortgage and 90 per cent, 80 per cent, most of 
                  the time, when you come to the sale, the mortgage 
                  holder bids his lien, he buys the building. But  
                  this first contract that Dupont entered into and 
                  the one Zucker eventually - -Donald Zucker, I 
                  don't have to explain who Donald Zucker is sup-
                  posed to be or is-- did buy, buy the right to 
                  purchase the mortgage, buy the mortgagee's inter-
                  est which means purchase the building by bidding 
                  the amount of the mortgage. Well, that's not an 
                  uncommon thing. 
                  I think it's also undisputed in 1977, Richard 
                  didn't close the contract, didn't purchase the 
                  mortgage interest for whatever reason that may be 
                  in dispute. Richard did not close. He did not buy 
                  the mortgage's interest, he did not obtain the 
                  right to simply bid the mortgage interest and get 
                  title to the property in that way. 
                  In 1977 Richard met a young man, David Trapnell, 
                  who testified-- I think it's pretty clear he met 
                  David Trapnell in 1977. At some point in here it's 
                  pretty clear that Donald Zucker had done what 
                  Richard wanted to do, he bought the mortgagee's 
                  interest and the right to bid it in. In December 
                  of '77 there was a sale and Trapnell and Dupont 
                  --basically Trapnell acting as Richard's partner, 
                  bid, I think, $57,600 for the premises. Trapnell, 
                  and again this can not be seriously disputed, the 
                  evidence is here, Trapnell paid $57,600 to the 
                  referee who was selling the property with an 
                  obligation to close within so many days after that 
                  to buy the property. And I think it's pretty 
                  clear, can not be disputed, that Trapnell and 
                  Dupont did not close that transaction either. 
                  It's also pretty clear that through this period of 
                  time various people were coming to see Big Gym and 
                  Richard and Trapnell's enterprise at 644 Green-
                  wich. Gillis testified he came; Cohn and everybody 
                  else testified that Lew Katz was there; Paul Dano 
                  indicated he was there; David Tackett, another 
                  prosecution witness, testified that he was there. 
                  Everybody is looking and talking to Richard. And 
                  that can't be disputed. 
                  Ed Heller testified-- remember, he was the young 
                  lawyer for Saxe Bacon & Bolan who quit in June, 
                  1978? He left Saxe Bacon & Bolan sometime in June 
                  of '78, that's pretty important in terms of set-
                  ting time frames. Heller testified that at some 
                  time when he was working for Saxe Bacon & Bolan, 
                  Roy Cohn said to him or sent him with Paul Dano to 
                  see Zucker. Zucker already had title, apparently 
                  before the second  referee sale. Heller testified 
                  he was sent with Dano to see Zucker and either 
                  Zucker's partner or his lawyer to purchase the 
                  building for Dano. 
                  June of 1978, Zucker did what would be expected. 
                  Holding the mortgagee's interest, having purchased 
                  that, there was another sale of the building, 
                  Zucker purchased it. By July '78 (notice I am 
                  trying to concentrate in this particular run 
                  through on those things which are not really in 
                  dispute) Saxe, Bacon & Bolan is defending Dupont 
                  Estates, Richard Dupont and Trapnell. Zucker, who 
                  had purchased the property is seeking to oust 
                  Also, at this particular time, Russell Eldridge, 
                  the hairdresser from Cherry Hill and other places, 
                  begins to work at Big Gym, sets up the book keep-
                  ing, the record keeping system for Big Gym, starts 
                  collecting money for Big Gym, starts writing out 
                  the membership cards for Big Gym. 
                  In September of '78 (I believe it's in evidence) 
                  Mr. Cohn testified there was a complaint filed by 
                  Saxe Bacon & Bolan suing on behalf of Richard 
                  Dupont and Dupont Estates against Aaron Schwartz, 
                  the receiver of the property, and Zucker. In 
                  October of 1978, it's pretty undisputed that 
                  Schwartz who was the receiver, now the receiver -- 
                  maybe I should explain this to you--
        MR. WILSON: Judge, I'm going to object to Mr. Klotz if he's going 
                  to explain what receivers in general are. 
        MR. KLOTZ: I think it's important that they understand. 
        THE COURT: No, if you want it, you make a request to the Court. 
                  That's a legal matter and it's not in evidence. I'll 
                  sustain the objection. I don't think attorney's should 
                  have the right to expostulate on the law or give a 
                  description of in the face of an objection. That's my 
                  role if it's appropriate. Sustained. 
        MR. KLOTZ: (continuing) The receiver who had signed a lease with 
                  Dupont renting him part of the premises sometime in '76 
                  sued Dupont for rent due from November, December of 
                  1977 which was the expiration of that lease. It  was 
                  also just before Dupont and Trapnell put down the 
                  $57,000 to buy the property, that the lease expired. 
                  Saxe Bacon & Bolan defended that. 
                  Now the court, and this is in evidence, apparently 
                  ordered the payment of use and occupancy. 
                  Mr. Cohn testified about this, there's no dispute 
                  about this. Use and occupancy is money paid by 
                  someone who is occupying real property, defending 
                  an eviction action, but the court said it's not 
                  fair for you to be there if you are defending the 
                  action without paying rent. The Court ordered ten 
                  thousand dollars use and occupancy, the rent being 
                  $1,400 per month and that's in evidence. 
                  They ordered Dupont to post approximately seven 
                  month's rent, due rent to stay there. And it's 
                  undisputed that Saxe Bacon and Bolan paid that 
                  money from Saxe Bacon & Bolan's law firm account. 
                  That's not in dispute and that occurred in Octob-
                  er, 1978. 
                  Not disputed is that in November of 1978, the 
                  referee said to Dupont -- referee made a decision 
                  (this is referee Donald Diamond of the Supreme 
                  Court) said you have no right to stay there, you 
                  should get out. It's undisputed, December 12, 1978 
                  or 11th, that particular one or two day period, an 
                  order was entered by a Supreme Court judge, "Yes, 
                  Donald Diamond, we adopt his report and get out." 

                  In 1978, Saxe Bacon & Bolan did nothing between 
                  December 12 and January-- between December 12, 
                  1978 and January 9th, 1979, no formal steps were 
                  taken to defend Richard's right to be there or to 
                  even delay it a few days so Richard had time to 
                  get his stuff together and move out. Nothing was 
                  done until after the trucks were lined up in front 
                  of Big Gym to remove everything. The application 
                  for an order to show cause, in evidence from the 
                  court files was not  submitted until January 9th. 
                  Richard testified sometime in the afternoon. No 
                  contrary testimony to that. 
                  Not disputed either, there is in evidence a com-
                  plaint  dated February 20, 1979 where the name of 
                  the attorney appears. It's also not disputed that 
                  particular complaint was an action Dupont v. 
                  Zucker and was verified by Richard on February 27, 
                  1978. That's not disputed, it's in evidence. I 
                  don't believe it could be disputed, it's in evi-
                  dence, you saw it. Saxe Bacon & Bolan, February 
                  It's also not disputed, the versions are disputed, 
                  that sometime on April of '79 --we're in '79 now-- 
                  Dupont visited Cohn in the hospital. I mean, boy, 
                  we've talked about that hospital visit. Not dis-
                  puted, can't be. Well, it's in evidence, a piece 
                  of paper, it's nobody's testimony, that on May 
                  23d, 1979 in an action Dupont v. Zucker, Dupont 
                  verified an affidavit for Saxe Bacon & Bolan. So 
                  in that action which was an action suing Zucker 
                  for over a million dollars, May 23, 1979, Saxe 
                  Bacon & Bolan papers, Richard verifies an affida-
                  vit. That affidavit, incidentally, was in connec-
                  tion (you can read it) with various motions. 
                  Richard testified that sometime in June '79 
                  --there's no testimony to the contrary-- he testi-
                  fied at a deposition. It's also not disputed that 
                  on June 22, 1979 and when it was finally admitted 
                  into evidence we did not object, June 22, 1979, 
                  Dupont sent a telegram concerning the French desk, 
                  the cartoons and all that stuff. Richard sent that 
                  telegram, we're not disputing that. 
                  Also not disputed is that in the Fall of '79, 
                  David Tackett visited Roy Cohn to talk about 
                  Richard. This run through, let's just leave it at 
                  that. That's undisputed. Dupont testified to it. 
                  Cohn testified to it. Tackett testified to it. 
                  In the meantime, there are two other sagas that 
                  are touched upon by this case that are taking 
                  place. In the later part of '78, early part of 
                  '79, Steve Rubell and Ian Schraeger -- this is 
                  part of the case, certainly part of the later 
                  counts-- are arrested and charged with evading 
                  many hundreds of thousands of dollars in income 
                  taxes. Mr. Cohn testified that he  had been Ru-
                  bell's and Schraeger's lawyer from the inception 
                  of Studio 54. 
                  Also it is in this case as a peripheral matter, a  
                  collateral matter we sometimes call them, that a  
                  fellow called Eugene Skowron and a business asso-
                  ciate named Howard Pfeffer had gone to Cohn. 
                  Skowron had been accused of a crime. He also had a 
                  business called Universal Money Order which was a 
                  check cashing business. Somehow, Skowron wound up 
                  in jail (which Mr. Pfeffer indicated was a sur-
                  prise) and Paul Dano ended up buying Mr. Skowron's 
                  business with what Mr. Pfeffer (a prosecution 
                  witness said) was at least, in part, Mr. Pfeffer's 
                  All that is really prologue. With the exception of 
                  perhaps the First Count, it's the background. It's 
                  the milieu in which everything has to be evaluat-
                  ed. Essentially, it's uncontroverted. And from 
                  this, there is now before you some action which 
                  occurred, with the exception to Count One, after 
                  all of this. There is before you a twelve count 
                  indictment charging Richard with various crimes. 
                  Now, Count One (I'm just going to run through them 
                  quickly the first time) Count One charges attempt-
                  ed coercion saying that in February of 1979, Saxe 
                  terminated its legal representation of Richard 
                  Dupont and thereafter Richard tried to coerce Roy 
                  Cohn into being his lawyer by threatening damage 
                  to the property of Saxe, Bacon & Bolan. That's 
                  Count One. 
                  Count Two charges that Richard committed burglary, 
                  Third Degree, by entering the offices of Mr. 
                  Gillis without permission with intent to commit 
                  the crime of larceny. 
                  Count Three charges Richard stole papers from the 
                  of fice. 
                  Count Four charges that Richard attempted to steal 
                  money from Saxe, Bacon & Bolan by billing phone 
                  I'm giving shorthand for all this, the indictment 
                  Count Five charges that Richard harassed someone 
                  named June Osbourne, an employee at Manufacturers 
                  Hanover bank by phoning her and telling her infor-
                  mation concerning Saxe, Bacon and Bolan or Dano or 
                  somebody was kiting checks. Richard, by the way 
                  has not denied that phone call. 
                  Six, he's charged with harassing Ellen McGrath. 
                  Cer tainly Richard has conceded he's called Ellen 
                  McGrath on many occasions and the contents of the 
                  He's charged with harassment by calling the Green-
                  wich police in Count Seven which was related to 
                  Count Ten, based on the same facts, charged essen-
                  tially turning in a false alarm. Seven and Ten are 
                  the same factual pattern. 
                  Count Eight, he's charged with initiating and 
                  communicating with Roy Cohn through something 
                  called Now East which you all had a chance to read 
                  or see anyway. 
                  Count Nine, he's charged with putting a public 
                  notice in the New York Times. 
                  Ten, I spoke about. 
                  Eleven he's charged with knowing that Howard 
                  Pfeffer was going to testify before a Grand Jury 
                  trying to prevent him from talking or tampering 
                  with him.  
                  Twelve he's charged with harassing Roy Cohn 
                  through  all of the above, essentially. 
                  Now Dupont is on trial for the allegations of that 
                  indictment.  He's not on trial for having once 
                  been convicted, over ten years ago, of a crime.  
                  That's not an issue, that only will come  in terms 
                  of whether or not his testimony credible.  Once 
                  convicted ten years ago he's not on trial for 
                  He's not on trial because at various times during 
                  the course of salesmanship or whatever, he doesn't 
                  use his name.  That doesn't lie at the heart of 
                  any charges.  He's not on trial for that.  He's 
                  not on trial because at one time he may have used 
                  what you or I would consider questionable business 
                  practices.  That's not any charge before us.  If 
                  you feel that's a charge before us, that's someth-
                  ing you've got to take out.  None of them are a 
                  part of any charge.  
                  And these things which consume a substantial 
                  portion or at least a large portion of Mr. Wil-
                  son's examination of Mr. Dupont do not relate to 
                  the specific question of did he do this and the 
                  fact that you may not like Richard, the fact you 
                  may have thought he was a terrible witness, the 
                  fact that anyone else here may agree with you does 
                  not affect the point of did he do that.  They just 
                  go to if you believe what he said, maybe. The 
                  judge is going to instruct you on what you can 
                  consider in considering credibility. 
                  Now, as I said, he can't be convicted because you 
                  may not, for certain reasons, decide you don't 
                  like him very much. Okay?  We're talking about 
                  conviction for a crime,  and we convict people for 
                  what they do, not for how  we feel about them.  
                  And the fact that he may be unpopular does not 
                  mean he's guilty.  
                  The fact you may even be repulsed by some of the 
                  things he says or does not mean he's guilty of the 
                  charges in that indictment.  
                  And before I get carried away with this, remember  
                  Richard did not have to take the stand, that was a 
                  voluntary act.  His right not to take the stand is 
                  enshrined in the Constitution of the United 
                  States, but he put that right aside, and he took 
                  the stand.  He was testifying with his life and 
                  his freedom on the line and what one or any of us 
                  in this room unless they've had a lot of experi-
                  ence in the courtroom would not understand those 
                  circumstances, tend to be overwrought.  Who could 
                  sit there with all of these charges against us 
                  having watched witness after witness appear, not 
                  to be a little nervous, so over anxious, so over-
                  wrought, to make a point that perhaps you make a 
                  bad impression.  Richard was reliving a nightmare 
                  on the stand.       
                  In the course of his representation by Saxe, Bacon 
                  and Bolan, to him, he not only lost his business, 
                  he not only lost his potential business if he had 
                  one, he lost his home.  He was arrested at one 
                  point for having gone back to his home after he 
                  was evicted from it and it's in the record that 
                  his lawyers were Saxe at that time. 
                  He had the traumatic experience and I really don't 
                  think this can be disputed, that on January 9th, 
                  of 1979 (and whether you or I may think this 
                  business of Big Gym was the greatest enterprise of 
                  all time is irrelevant, but to him I think he was 
                  sincere in saying it was) he walks in.  January of 
                  1979 and suddenly the Sheriff is in there with the 
                  movers and his property is being carted away.  
                  That's a painful experience, one that would af-
                  fect, I think, how he sits on the stand.  And he 
                  took that stand of his own volition knowing, his 
                  he a admitted, all those things which could be 
                  brought up by the prosecutor and all of his past 
                  practices, everything in his life, would be sub-
                  jected to the closest scrutiny and the most 
                  searching examination by Mr. Wilson as is his 
                  duty.  I'm not gainsaying Mr. Wilson's right to 
                  subject Richard to a grueling examination.  But 
                  certainly Mr. Wilson, being Bureau Chief or wha-
                  tever,was a relentless and persistent interroga-
                  And how many of us in this room would really feel  
                  comfortable under those circumstances?  And how 
                  many of us would be able to maintain our cool and 
                  testify in an unconcerned way.  Yet, testify he 
                  Contrast it with Roy Cohn.  If the question was 
                  who presents a better public image, Roy Cohn or 
                  Richard Dupont, lets stop right now. But again, 
                  that's not the question before you.  What a mag-
                  nificent image was proffered of Roy Cohn by the 
                  District Attorney's office.  Make no mistake about 
                  it, when you put a witness on the stand, you vouch 
                  for him.  Chairman of the Board, in a sense, the 
                  senior partner, of this magnificent law firm Saxe, 
                  Bacon & Bolan.  You get the impression of Cohn 
                  sitting in a chair someplace, it's almost bibli-
                  cal.  I send this man thither and he goes, I send 
                  this man yonder and he goes, people report -- too 
                  busy to pay attention to the trifling affairs of 
                  Richard Dupont.  Why should the senior partner of 
                  this law firm care too much about this man?  This 
                  crazy man, this creep. 
                  "Creep".  (That's his word,) who I never really 
                  trusted from the very beginning."  "I really never 
                  paid attention to this."  How many times did Roy 
                  Cohn say when you got beyond the first fringe of 
                  his examination "I really don't remember that," "I 
                  really don't recall that?"  Hundreds of times, 
                  tens of times.  You're recollection governs.  I 
                  recall an awful lot. 
                  I'm going to suggest something to you.  That if 
                  you do your job, put aside your initial impres-
                  sions and you carefully evaluate the evidence.  In  
                  deliberation, you're going to find not only at the 
                  very minimum reasonable doubt about the particu-
                  lars of this case if we counted by count, but I 
                  think you are going to reach the surprising con-
                  clusion that when it comes to he guts of this case 
                  you have more reason to believe Mr. Dupont that 
                  you have of Roy Cohn.  And the burden of proof is 
                  on the prosecution.
                  We don't -- the defense does not have to prove 
                  anything.  It's the burden of proof of the prose-
                  cution  to remove from your minds reasonable 
                  Now, the judge will instruct you in detail on he 
                  law, your recollection of the evidence will gov-
                  ern.  And this is going to be a relatively long 
                  presentation  this morning, but this is my chance, 
                  this is the defendant's opportunity to go over 
                  with you this evidence.  Mr. Wilson will come 
                  First, let's do a quick run through on the various 
                  personalities who marched to the stand. 
                  Roy Cohn, first witness, testified at length, 
                  Chairman of the Board on direct examination, 
                  senior partner --" I let the little guys in the 
                  office handle the stuff and I met with Richard 
                  Dupont" -- how many times did Roy cohn meet 
                  Richard Dupont?  Various times in his testimony, I 
                  think two or three times, I think that's what I 
                  recall, certainly didn't say five or six. 
                  Robert Treadway; nice young man.  Had a story on 
                  the direct examination which was awesome in it's 
                  detail.  On Cross Examination unfortunately, a lot 
                  of that detail seemed to vanish.  Do you remember 
                  the number of visits it took to get files and all 
                  of a sudden on Cross Examination it wasn't quite 
                  as many visits.  Do you remember  his  detailed 
                  description of thumbing through the file and 
                  summarizing the material. This is key, we'll get 
                  back to this, two sheets of original letterhead 
                  paper in the same style of Saxe, Bacon & Bolan to 
                  which was annexed a piece of paper, Freedman-Roth 
                  was on that piece of paper.  They were stapled 
                  together and they were in the file for 39 East 
                  68th Street which by this time we know was Roy 
                  Cohn's townhouse, office or whatever. 
                  Edward Gillis: (Roy Cohn testified on Direct 
                  Examina tion that he didn't know Gillis well, that 
                  he was not a very close friend;) testified as to 
                  what was in the files.  Between him and Treadway, 
                  we'll discuss later.  Gillis I think made a nice 
                  impression.  Also seemed to know Roy Cohn a lot 
                  better than Roy Cohn said Gillis knew him.  Gillis 
                  testified that when he went on vacation last 
                  December he had the freedom to hook up his answer-
                  ing service or phone to Saxe Bacon & Bolan's 
                  switchboard.  Manso told us how Gillis spends 
                  holidays with Roy in Provincetown and various 
                  places and Manso met him there the last three 
                  years. Gillis testified that he reported about his 
                  activities at 644 Greenwich Street directly to Roy 
                  David Tackett -- by the way the piece of paper in 
                  that file will demonstrate that. 
                  David Tackett; nice appearing young man.  Known 
                  Mr. Cohn when he met him in a night club in Miami.  
                  Six months later he moved to New York in this 
                  powerhouse of a business with Paul Dano.  Had seen 
                  Richard's business early on, had reported directly 
                  to Roy Cohn what a crazy business it was - - early 
                  Ellen McGrath -- Now Ellen McGrath is one of the 
                  people who Richard is accused of harassing on the 
                  telephone.  What the indictment does, it picks up 
                  one or two or some number from scores of phone 
                  calls that Ellen McGrath has had with Richard both 
                  before and after the incident and said that was an 
                  harassing phone call.  I must say this and this is 
                  probably the most discouraging part of Richard's 
                  examination and the reaction that people had when 
                  he was on the stand, in his excitement and real 
                  sense of outrage, his inability to communicate 
                  that well.  People like Richard. 
                  Ellen McGrath, during my Cross Examination and I 
                  think it was sincere, I don't think Ellen McGrath 
                  dislikes Richard Dupont at all.  I think she 
                  almost views him with -- you know, affection 
                  friendship.  And you may remember my last ques-
                  tion, Richard's last phone call to Ellen, highly 
                  harassing.  After harassing phone calls were 
                  alleged, Ellen testified to phone calls by Richard 
                  which were not harassing. 
                  June Osbourne, she was the woman from Manufactur-
                  ers bank. She has a job to receive complaints, she 
                  got one, she passed it on, that's her job. Dupont 
                  admits that call. 
                  Howard Pfeffer, Catskill comic, spent several 
                  years in the Borscht Belt, comedian, don't forget 
                  about that.  We'll talk more in detail about him 
                  later on.  I don't get the impression Howard 
                  Pfeffer dislikes Richard. 

                  Mrs. Engle for the telephone company was just a 
                  technical witness, got a lot of documents intro-
                  duced.  She didn't have anything terribly direct 
                  to say except she testified to some telephone 
                  company procedures and we got some records in 
                  Miss Mayo, for the answering service, there's no 
                  con tention that Richard ever spoke to Miss Mayo.  
                  Okay? I don't think there can be -- she was admit-
                  ted for very limited purposes, we'll have to 
                  figure out later. 
                  Mrs. Pelletier for the New York Times took an ad 
                  for one of the advertisements and I get the im-
                  pression that outside of the connection of that ad 
                  in the  New York Times, you know the one that Roy 
                  Cohn and Paul Dano and Lew Katz are taking over 
                  Studio 54, that the principal reason for saying 
                  Richard must have talked to Mrs. Pelletier on the 
                  telephone was that the man was polite and nice.  
                  If he's convicted on that charge of harassment, 
                  he'll be the first person convicted of harassment 
                  for having talked nice to someone on the tele-
                  phone, if he did it, which he denied.  That's the 
                  only connection of the voice that they'll tell you 
                  about.  She never identified his voice, she never 
                  heard Richard speak.  
                  Mr. Brody, the same thing.  Mr. Brody who was an 
                  assistant to Judge Kirschenbaum. No identification 
                  of the voice.  In Brody's case, the person who 
                  called him did leave back a number.  There was no 
                  call back on that number to see who was on the 
                  other side of that.  You're going to be instructed 
                  on circumstantial evidence as to Pelletier and 
                  Manso testified that he called Now East, that he 
                  also received a copy of Now East from an employee 
                  of Roy Cohn's.  Pretty important.  Received a copy 
                  of Now East from an employee of Roy Cohn.  He had 
                  expressed an interest to the employee of Roy Cohn 
                  an  getting more copies and he also called Now 
                  East and thereafter he received a call from a 
                  voice  who he cannot identify who said his name 
                  was Richard Colt Dupont. No other place in this 
                  record is there any allegation or Richard ever 
                  using three names on a  phone call. 
                  Now, witnesses for the defense -- I think that's 
                  all of the prosecutions witnesses, if I overlooked 
                  somebody -- witnesses for the defense, David 
                  Trapnell.  David, despite the best efforts of Mr. 
                  Wilson, does not feel cheated, - - I think that's 
                  pretty obvious -- by Richard.  He's Richard's 
                  partner, came back here from Los Angeles to testi-
                  fy.  He did pay fifty-seven thousand for the right 
                  to purchase at the sale and he testified as to 
                  certain events that Richard testified deeply to. 
                  Edward Heller, the young lawyer from Saxe, Bacon & 
                  Bolan, never a question asked of Mr. Heller on 
                  Cross Examination.  Testified simply and directly 
                  to a snapshot.  Your problem is to find out the 
                  truly, what really happened.  Ed Heller is a 
                  snapshot.  I think it's a very reliable snapshot.  
                  It's a little picture that's beyond attack and how 
                  does it fit in?    Before June of 1978 or sometime 
                  in June of 1978 at the very latest.  Roy Cohn sent 
                  Ed Heller with Paul Dano to buy the building from 
                  Zucker.  Okay?  How does that fit into the picture 
                  painted by Roy Cohn and Richard Dupont?  Where 
                  does that fit in to this case? 
                  Ed Molin, Mr. Wilson did spend some time cross 
                  examining Mr. Molin, not very much.  His testimony 
                  was another snapshot.  Ed Molin's snapshot was 
                  January 1st, he testified, 1979, we are in that 
                  period of time between the court telling -- the 
                  judge and the court saying the referee is right, 
                  get out and January 9 when the trucks arrived 
                  unexpectedly.  Ed Molin says I met Richard for the 
                  holidays, we were at Trilogy Restaurant, Richard 
                  had some conversations, I didn't hear those. Molin 
                  did not come in and say I heard this, this and 
                  this, a million things.  
                  Molin testified to a very limited snapshot.  Roy 
                  Cohn came over to their table.  The conversation 
                  was about how the buttons fit on the fur coat.   
                  Roy mentioned the fur coat was fine but had to do 
                  something with the buttons and Richard asked him 
                  to come see the Big Gym.  Cohn said when I argue 
                  for you in court I want to be able to tell the 
                  judge I've never been there, I don't want to be a 
                  witness.  Believable statements.  May sound 
                  strange to someone who is not a lawyer.  State-
                  ments, if you believe Roy Cohn, never happened. 
                  Patricia Livermore, another snapshot.  Again 
                  another person no questions asked on Cross Exami-
                  nation.  Again limited believable testimony from a 
                  real person with no real demonstrable interest in 
                  this litigation.  She testified about how late it 
                  was when Richard left a dinner party she was 
                  having.  She was at some dinner in a restaurant, 
                  he left very late to go to Roy Cohn's birthday 
                  party.  Somehow Richard's appearance at Roy Cohn's 
                  birthday party is a capital offense.  However, it 
                  was late in the night.  
                  Livermore's testimony was  on that point.   She 
                  also remembered another incident the year before, 
                  1979, the Spring of 1979.  It's very hard for me 
                  to tell about what would impress a jury the most 
                  about people telling the truth or not.  Personally 
                  -- strike personally.  You have to look at this, 
                  take Treadway, remember Treadway's impressive 
                  testimony when he was up there.  You ask one 
                  question and Treadway tells you everything but the 
                  color of Dupont's socks.  He knows the color of 
                  the papers in the files.  He knows precisely where 
                  he was.  He's running back and forth.  Well, all 
                  that stuff he knew, which on cross examination he 
                  had to retract part of. 
                  Livermore, testified -- she doesn't tell you it 
                  was a quarter to seven on May 13th and, it was 
                  this and that.  She said sometime in the Spring 
                  Richard stopped by, it was after dinner, he had to 
                  go over to the townhouse -- she testified she's 
                  known Roy Cohn ten or twelve years."  And I had to 
                  walk my dog, I walked my dog over at the townhouse 
                  with Richard and I sat with Richard while he's 
                  waiting to see Roy Cohn for an appointment and I'm 
                  there until Roy Cohn is ready to see Richard.  
                  Snapshot.  Couldn't have been too late in the 
                  Spring, couldn't come in too early because it was 
                  light when they left the house, around 6:30, 7:00.  
                  A little snapshot, but a snapshot which is totally 
                  inconsistent with the story that Dupont was fired 
                  by Cohn in January of 1979.  Snapshot, but a 
                  witness you'll have to totally disregard and throw 
                  in a trash can to convict.  Count Number One, 
                  totally impeached. 
                  The defense called Russell Eldridge to the stand, 
                  re member that.  Cohn testified as to Russell 
                  Eldridge's involvement and Russell doing this and 
                  Russell doing that.  It wasn't the prosecution 
                  calling Russell Eldridge to the stand, it was the 
                  Paul Dano, the defense called Paul Dano to the 
                  stand.  We elicited from Paul Dano one thing, yes, 
                  Ed Heller did take him to see Zucker.  He did 
                  testify to that.  We asked Mr. Dano when he ac-
                  quired Richard's Rolls Royce, he testified late in 
                  seventy-eight.  We pointed out that he had pre-
                  viously sworn -- got it August of seventy-eight, 
                  that's a big difference there because of the facts 
                  of the case. 

                  Now the testimony of August of 1978, the judge 
                  will instruct you is for a limited purpose.  As I 
                  said before, vouching for a witness, we call Dano, 
                  I mean here I am -- here Richard is -- the defense 
                  is calling to the stand what would be reasonably 
                  classified on the evidence before us, Roy Cohn's 
                  most intimate associate, a person very close to 
                  Roy Cohn, business wise, every other wise.  The 
                  defense calls him to the stand.  We asked very few 
                  questions.  Once the inconsistency between the 
                  prior testimony arose, we had no further questions 
                  for Mr. Dano. 
                  Vincent Millard testified -- well, not too very 
                  much because the issue was the existence of cer-
                  tain books and records.  And as the trial moved on 
                  and particularly with Miss Livermore's testimony 
                  we did not feel it necessary to pursue Millard any 
                  And, of course, Richard Dupont testified.  And we 
                  do have in terms of credibility some dispute 
                  between Richard and Roy Cohn, let's face it.  And 
                  on the surface, again, looking at appearances, one 
                  would want to say well, there's that lawyer up 
                  there and this person whose pictures are on covers 
                  of magazines, all over the place, very famous 
                  person, Studio 54.  Here's this crazy fag from the 
                  Village yelling and screaming at me.  Who should I 
                  I'm going to challenge you.  I'm going to ask you 
                  to suspend in your determinations for at least a 
                  few minutes or so during your deliberations. Don't 
                  make a facile determination of credibility of 
                  those two.  Don't just say I'm going to believe 
                  Cohn because he was obviously a very important 
                  person, Dupont's a crazy person.  Suspend it for a 
                  minute.  Examine the pieces of paper if necessary 
                  or recall the pieces of paper.  Recall the testi-
                  mony of everybody else and compare it with what 
                  Cohn said and with what Dupont said.  And if you 
                  do, maybe you won't determine that I'm going to 
                  believe everything that Richard said, but you 
                  certainly ought to have a reasonable doubt about 
                  the tale told by Roy Cohn and about Roy Cohn's 
                  Cohn's testimony, '76, '79 -- '78 Cohn testifies 
                  that Dupont originally never paid a dime of that 
                  rent.  Dupont never paid anything to buy the 
                  building and Dupont told him that he had given 
                  Zucker seventy-five thousand dollars.  Well, 
                  that's bunk.  

                  We know they paid money to buy the building, we 
                  have a piece of paper which says that they did.  
                  The rental actions were brought against Richard 
                  and there was money paid on those leases, there 
                  was  evidence that there was money paid on that 
                  lease from '76 to November of '77, no contradic-
                  tion of that by people who know the facts. 
                  Now Cohn says that Richard approached him early 
                  '78 and you remember, trying to pin Roy Cohn down 
                  and God knows he's a successful attorney and 
                  probably a lot smarter than any lawyer Richard 
                  could afford or induce to represent him, trying to 
                  pin Roy Cohn down to the date of the conversation 
                  is one of the most interesting problems of juris-
                  prudence.  He says he met Dupont personally early 
                  in seventy-eight.  Well, was it June of seventy-
                  eight?  No, well, it was early in seventy-eight.  
                  Was it January, Mr. Cohn?  I'm not sure whether it 
                  was that early.    Well, January -- long time 
                  between January and June of a year.  Finally, I 
                  think he decided it was March or April.  We know, 
                  don't we, that he sent Ed Heller and Mr. Dano to 
                  Zucker to buy the building before June.   Doesn't 
                  recollect much else.  He also said that other 
                  lawyers were handling this," I didn't pay much 
                  attention to it." 
                  "Dano's the one that told me to pay the money" and 
                  David Trapnell had some long testimony about that 
                  meeting.  "After the attorneys for Zucker told me 
                  what a liar Dupont was, my goodness, was I 
                  shocked, I decided enough was enough and some 
                  other things happened."  And that conversation 
                  with the lawyers for Zucker we were successful in 
                  pinning him down a little bit.  Conversations 
                  between Cohn and Zucker's attorney had to have 
                  occurred before January 9 of 1979.  "When I first 
                  learned that Richard was such a horrible person." 
                  In his testimony about Zucker.  "I never met 
                  Zucker in my life, I've never seen him, I don't 
                  know who he is."  Later on; "I've never met or 
                  talked to Zucker to this very day."  Later on;  
                  "I've never spoken to Zucker directly or indirect-
                  ly."  And let me, in your minds and in your mind 
                  underline, emphasis supplied, indirectly and 
                  that's what he testified to.  Your recollection 
                  governs, Okay?  But that appears what he testified 
                  And he did not recall a conversation with Heller 
                  about Zucker, but he did say well, it could be 
                  that Heller had said let me talk to Zucker to 
                  compromise this thing and I said yes.  But of 
                  course we know when Heller took Dano to see Zucker 
                  there wasn't anything to compromise because it was 
                  before June of '78.  It was before Zucker brought 
                  any lawsuits against Richard.  It was before 
                  anybody was seeking to evict Richard. 
                  Now then, part of Cohn's testimony was this tape 
                  re corded conversation between Cohn and Richard.  
                  Remember?  Not the first words, but words.  "Isn't 
                  it true that when you first came to me you told me 
                  you  had paid Zucker seventy-five thousand to buy 
                  the building and he bought the building in his own 
                  name?"  Okay.  Zucker did not buy the building in 
                  his own name until June of 1978 at the second 
                  referee's sale.  And these papers are in evidence 
                  I believe, or at least the testimony on them is in 
                  Let me skip forward and back as I did with Mr. 
                  Cohn's Cross Examination.  I showed Mr. Cohn -- I 
                  said was this representation about seventy-five 
                  thousand dollars being paid to Zucker important in 
                  Richard's case?  And he says: "yes, it was. 
                  Richard told us he paid to Zucker seventy-five 
                  thousand dollars and that was the whole case -- 
                  that was an important part of our case."  I think 
                  it is a fair summary of what was said.  
                  I gave Mr. Cohn the complaint in the action, the 
                  Dupont vs. Schwartz and Zucker, September of '78.  
                  Where is it?  And he looked at it.  He said well, 
                  "here it is but it's not $75,000, it's $57,000."   
                  Remember that?  
                  Except that the $57,000 was referring to the money 
                  that David Trapnell actually did in fact pay, 
                  there's no dispute about that Mr. Trapnell paying.  
                  Then I said "where else, it's not here, where 
                  else?"  He said well, we filed an affirmative 
                  defense to Zucker trying to get us out of the 
                  Now, that's July of '78, I believe that's also 
                  been marked in evidence and we read that to the 
                  Court, we read that to you, Richard identified his 
                  signature on that.  We read that to you an no 
                  where was there any reference to $75,000.  Again 
                  it was a reference to the $57,000 that was actual-
                  ly paid.  
                  Well, what's going on?  Here is Roy Cohn, the 
                  presti gious attorney telling us Richard Dupont 
                  told me he paid $75,000 to Donald Zucker and that 
                  was the basis of our case.  This is a fact we put 
                  in legal papers  and when you go to legal papers 
                  it's not there.  The only reference is to the 
                  Trapnell $57,000 paid to  Zucker.  What's going 
                  "Never paid a dime's rent for two years."  That 
                  was his testimony to the Grand Jury and that was 
                  his testimony to you and the papers don't support 
                  that.  He didn't pay rent when Zucker -- No, he 
                  didn't pay rent for the time he testified that 
                  Trapnell made the bid, that was December of 1977 
                  or nine months when Dupont consulted with Cohn.  
                  Not for two years, never paid a dime's rent, never 
                  paid a penny for the building. 
                  Cohn testified he never paid a penny of the build-
                  ing.  We know that's wrong, that's just not true.  
                  Oh, I'm also into why did Cohn decide in February, 
                  right, to fire Richard?  Well, he discovered about 
                  the Attorney General's problem.  Well, we know at 
                  least in October of '78 they were representing 
                  Richard in front of the Attorney General.  
                  And Richard was a terrible person who used other 
                  names.  Didn't Mr. Gillis by the way, testify that 
                  when he first saw the building very early in the 
                  game, that Richard used another name.  I don't 
                  really think any of that stuff came as a surprise 
                  to Mr. Cohn.  
                  Oh, yes, and also no one in the law firm agreed to 
                  work with Richard.  And this terminator of counsel 
                  again we have a problem with Mr. Cohn.  It's also 
                  the same problem, not a mirror image, the same 
                  problem.  When did the conversation take place?  
                  When Mr. Cohn is thinking about oh, gee whiz, I 
                  testified that I spoke to Zucker's attorney before 
                  Richard was evicted, you can see the date creeping 
                  backward towards January of 1979.  When you ask 
                  him  what was still going on in the file, Mr. Cohn 
                  is becoming a little concerned, does he remember 
                  everything in the file?  The date kind of swings 
                  forward towards April.  
                  We know it was obviously before January and before 
                  Dupont saw Mr. Cohn in the hospital.  Cohn testi-
                  fied at the time Richard visited him in the hospi-
                  tal, we'll get into this in a little more detail, 
                  I'm running very late, Dupont was already "dis-
                  traught." Mr. Dupont denied Roy Cohn had a conver-
                  sation with him in February terminating that 
                  relationship.  That these things that happened 
                  thereafter; the hospital visit, Livermore's con-
                  versation, the papers filed by Saxe, Bacon & 
                  Bolan, the appearance at the deposition are not 
                  peripheral things but are very important. 
                  Now Dupont's testimony.  Dupont knew Cohn before.  
                  That's Richard's testimony.  He gave Cohn gifts: a 
                  TV. set which Cohn did not mention in his testimo-
                  ny; a fur coat which Cohn explicitly denied in the 
                  testimony but which Molin thinks was the subject 
                  of the conversation in the Trilogy Restaurant; and 
                  a desk which Cohn admitted but was a lousy desk 
                  which we then spent money refurbishing.  
                  And the flowers were wilted.  Why did the flowers 
                  have to be wilted at the hospital?  You heard 
                  Tackett testify, the nice gifts Richard had given 
                  to people.  Why did the antique desk have to be 
                  terrible?  The flowers have to be wilted?  I would 
                  suggest to you -- why is the fur coat denied?  Why 
                  is it denied?  Flatly denied.  Not that I don't 
                  recall, but flatly denied.  It might be something 
                  going on here psychological.  The testimony about 
                  the wilted flowers which I don't believe is be-
                  lievable, the insistence that the flowers were 
                  wilted, something to think about. 
                  Let's go over Richard Dupont's testimony.  Richard 
                  testified that he had a contract with Ochs to buy 
                  the             building in 1976.  Contract was not ful-
                  filled.  He had a contract with David Trapnell to 
                  buy the building, the contract is in evidence.  
                  Unquestionably money paid  on that contract and 
                  Richard testified to money on the other.  He 
                  testified as to Russell, the hairdresser.  Okay?  
                  Russell, the hairdresser was put there to oversee 
                  things for Roy Cohn.  Russell was there collecting 
                  the money; Russell was writing on the cards with 
                  his own handwriting. 
                  Cohn testified that Russell is Paul Dano's repre-
                  sentative.  But he' somebody's representative at 
                  Big Gym and Russell was there doing a lot of 
                  All right, let's get down to the nitty gritty.  
                  Here's a flat out contradiction between testimony.  
                  Cohn denied that Russell Eldridge had stayed 
                  overnight in the townhouse on a regular basis 
                  during '78, during the period in question and Cohn 
                  testified under oath that Russell only stayed in 
                  the townhouse in '79 when he was between engage-
                  ments, on his way from Big Gym to Chicago.                      
                  Who was it?  Question:  Who was it that testified 
                  -- besides David Trapnell, who was it that testi-
                  fied that Russell Eldridge lived a third of the 
                  time during this period of time and on a regular 
                  basis slept overnight at the townhouse? Who was it 
                  that told you that story?  Do you remember? 
                  I'll give you the answer, you can't answer me 
                  back.  Russell Eldridge.  Russell Eldridge contra-
                  dicted Roy  Cohn's testimony about his relation-
                  ships to Cohn and living at the town house.  
                  Interesting.  And to reinforce Dupont and Trapnell 
                  to those particular items.  Reasonable doubt. 
                  Okay, the $10,000 contract, big dispute.  Cohn 
                  would have you believe that as an afterthought he 
                  paid -- Paul Dano says, oh, heck, why don't you 
                  give him the $10,000 and they took their money out 
                  of their account, what the hell is -- excuse me -- 
                  what the heck is another $10,000, and we knew Paul 
                  was good of it and that was all there was to that.  
                  Was there a contract?  Well maybe Russell was 
                  supposed to do something because he was working so 
                  hard, but I really don't remember anything like 
                  Trapnell testified, Dupont testified, Roy Cohn -- 
                  by the way, Gillis testified as to the facts -- to 
                  the fact of the meeting, Roy Cohn -- no, Gillis 
                  testified to the facts of the  meeting; Eldridge 
                  testified to the facts of the meeting; Trapnell 
                  testified to the facts of the meeting; Dupont 
                  testified to the facts of the meeting.  A big 
                  meeting with Roy Cohn which the payment of use and 
                  occupancy was discussed.  And Richard had said 
                  consistently from there on and there is no ifs 
                  ands or buts that since that time Richard has told 
                  everybody "Roy Cohn is my partner." And when after 
                  they severed relationships, -- Richard told every-
                  body Roy Cohn was my partner.  And low and behold, 
                  and that Roy Cohn has said Russell and I got 55 or 
                  50% of this at that meeting.  We're going to pay 
                  the $10,000. 
                  Here it is, Exhibit D in evidence, a contract 
                  where Russell Eldridge picks up 45% of Big Gym or 
                  Dupont Estates, Russell Eldridge, 45% for ten 
                  thousand dollars.   
                  Ed  Gillis, I heard about this but I don't under-
                  stand it.  I think that was Gillis's testimony, 
                  gets ten percent of the business.  This was the 
                  same business for which the $57,000 was paid, lost 
                  but paid.  Thousands of dollars were paid for 
                  rent, thousands of dollars were paid for heat and 
                  utilities and these guys are picking over half of 
                  it up for ten grand for  use and occupancy.  This 
                  is it, prepared by Mike Cacase at Saxe, Bacon & 
                  Bolan.  Cohn identified Cacase for us. 
                  Now, key point.  The contract called for two 
                  $5,000 payments.  Not a single ten thousand dollar 
                  payment, but two five thousand dollar payments and 
                  there is no explanation in this record for the 
                  manner of the payments except that contract be-
                  cause when the payments were made on use and 
                  occupancy and these are in evidence, it was paid 
                  by two $5,000 checks.  You can scratch your head, 
                  you can think about the evidence in the case.  Is 
                  there any explanation why they wrote two five 
                  thousand dollar checks which had to do with that 
                  contract which they prepared and which they gave 
                  to Richard to sign? 
                  Richard testified that in November, Diamond or-
                  dered them out.  And he testified to the meeting 
                  with Roy Cohn and he testified Roy Cohn held up a 
                  magazine with a picture on the cover and said I'm 
                  not worried about it.  Look at this,  guy, Decem-
                  ber issue of Esquire, I got a cover story, "Don't 
                  Mess With Roy Cohn, the legal executioner. 
                  In October of '79 Richard places the meeting with 
                  an advanced copy that was out early and he showed 
                  that to him and the context of do you think I'm 
                  worried about Donald Zucker? 
                  On December 12th, order of eviction; 11th, 12th, 
                  order of eviction came down.  What do they do?  
                  Nothing.  Richard runs down and says he's signing 
                  all kinds of papers and you can believe it, boy.   
                  He's got this business, got eight floors, seven 
                  floors, six whatever it is, loaded down with, what 
                  everyday says is junk except Richard and Trapnell.  
                  He bought out the Claridge Hotel.  He so testi-
                  What should I do?  Doesn't do anything to move.  
                  He says Cohn said sit tight, don't worry, we're on 
                  this.  We'll get an order to show cause.  January 
                  1st, Richard says he signed papers nothing hap-
                  pened yet.  
                  And the kind of legal work we're talking about is 
                  a law firm which has it's client, take from its 
                  client at his request or not, sign blank pieces of 
                  paper and these are in evidence.  Obviously so 
                  that some kind of legal documents can be filled 
                  in,  because we haven't got time to do the job 
                  now.  We'll do it  later. And those pieces of 
                  paper from Saxe, Bacon &  Bolan's file in evi-

                  January 1st or thereabouts, Christmas season.  
                  Richard meets his good friend Ed Molin at the 
                  Trilogy Restaurant.  Cohn is there with his bud-
                  Maybe Richard knew Cohn was going to be there, I 
                  wouldn't put it past him.  Walks in with Ed Molin, 
                  it's kind of an annual affair for them to meet 
                  once or twice for dinner, they're old friends.  
                  They sit down, Richard sends over a bottle of 
                  wine.  Cohn stops by the table and has a conversa-
                  tion.  And you know there's one thing about Cohn, 
                  the minute a third party appears on the scene, his 
                  conversations become much less descriptive.  His 
                  conversations with Richard are always very de-
                  tailed because it's my word against his and the 
                  minute a third party pokes his nose around, things 
                  are vague, things are less certain which is the 
                  same thing at the sentencing of Rubell and 
                  We know this  and it is not controverted that 
                  between December 12th and -- of 1978 and January 9 
                  of 1979 Saxe, Bacon & Bolan took no steps to keep 
                  Richard in, or to delay for one minute his evic-
                  tion. Richard testified to no advice to move out.  
                  Cohn said he wasn't involved.  No one came from 
                  Saxe, Bacon & Bolan.  But we do know the first 
                  time they went to court to get the order to show 
                  cause was after the sheriff was there moving 
                  Richard's goods out and the order to show cause 
                  was simply rejected by the clerk and that's a 
                  piece of paper that's in evidence -- deemed in 
                  evidence.  Okay.  And we also know, by the way, 
                  that before January 9 Roy Cohn admits speaking to 
                  the attorneys for Zucker. 
                  Now, what happened?  What is this context really 
                  about?  I don't think one of Cohn's associates 
                  ever really took Richard Dupont seriously as a 
                  captain of industry.  
                  Gillis testified he went and looked and reported 
                  what he found.  Tackett said he went and looked 
                  and did it and reported what he found.  Dano went 
                  and looked and didn't like what he saw and didn't 
                  Big Gym had an asset.  Do you know what that asset 
                  was?  Richard Dupont's tenacity being in that 
                  building and screwing up the efforts to convert 
                  that building to residential property.  Gillis 
                  testified, Gillis testified that a property is 
                  obviously, when you're doing a conversion, more 
                  valuable vacant than full.  

                  Gillis further testified, you know, a little 
                  conflict -- Gillis testified that in the summer, 
                  June of seventy-eight, Gillis testified in June of 
                  seventy- eight when Zucker used his mortgage right 
                  to buy the building, that June of seventy-eight 
                  Zucker put the building up for sale but everybody 
                  knew he was kidding.  Remember that? He wasn't 
                  serious so we didn't do anything about it.  He 
                  also testified in August of 1978 that there was in 
                  fact a contract executed to sell the building.  He 
                  learned of a contract from a third party. 
                  Let's go beyond that.  And if I were going to 
                  steal a piece of paper from Ed Gillis' office and 
                  this is the piece I'm going to steal, but I didn't 
                  steal a paper Richard didn't.  But here's the 
                  paper, August 29th of 1978, Ed Gillis writes down 
                  the name of the people and phone numbers of the 
                  people he's in contact with:  "Donald Zucker", 
                  "Irving Alter of Dreyer & Traub", "Ralph Galasso" 
                  was another attorney, "RMC."  And he testified he 
                  did call Roy Cohn, he did report to Roy Cohn what 
                  Zucker was thinking and doing with the building 
                  and when Roy Cohn wasn't there, he didn't leave a 
                  message for Jim Peck or anybody else, he left a 
                  message with Vincent Millard, Mr. Cohn's personal  
                  secretary or Christine, the switchboard operator 
                  for Roy to call him.  And when it comes to Big 
                  Gym, he writes down Big Gym with a number to call.  
                  And who's at Big Gym at this period of time?  
                  Who's down there running things at Big Gym?  
                  Russell Eldridge. 
                  Whether it was by plan, whether it was for 
                  $200,000 or not, sometime in December of 1979 
                  Saxe, Bacon & Bolan threw Richard to the dogs in 
                  terms of letting  him be evicted after they knew 
                  Richard possessed a valuable asset, openly trad-
                  able on the market.  
                  As a matter of fact, Gillis openly testified to a 
                  man named Pochcoff who had the contract and part 
                  of the terms of that contract were vacancy, that 
                  the seller could walk away with the contract from 
                  Zucker, if it wasn't vacant.  I believe the figure 
                  of $200,000 clearly appears -- may appear to a 
                  reasonable mind that the figure $200,000 refers to 
                  the evaluation of the vacancy of the building.  
                  You looked at it before.  
                  But in any event, no question about it.  The most 
                  valuable asset to Big Gym in addition to the cash 
                  aspect to the immediate problems were the fact 
                  that he was there and he was in everybody's way by 
                  being there.  A clever lawyer can make money  out 
                  of that situation. Hopefully for a client.  
                  But then again, is Roy Cohn a clever lawyer? 
        (WHEREUPON, there was a side bar discussion.) 
        THE COURT: Members of the jury, we're going to take a five minute 
                  break, do not discuss the case five minutes. 
                  (WHEREUPON, the jury leaves the jury box and exits 
                  the courtroom.) 
        THE COURT:  I think the record should disclose the fact that this 
                  interruption was in request of Mr. Klotz. 
        MR. KLOTZ:  Absolutely, your Honor. 
        THE COURT:  Upon consent from the District Attorney. 
        MR. WILSON: Yes, your Honor. 
        THE COURT:  It was not at the initiative of anyone but Mr. Klotz.  
                  Five minutes. 
                  (WHEREUPON, the court stands in recess.) 
                            AFTER RECESS 
                  (The defendant, his attorney, the Assistant Dis-
                  trict Attorneys are all present in court.) 
        THE COURT: Bring the jury in. 
                  (WHEREUPON, the jury enters the courtroom and 
                  fills the jury box.) 
        THE CLERK:  Your Honor, this is the matter of the People of the 
                  State of New York and Richard Dupont. 
        The defendant, his counsel and the Assistant District Attorney 
                  and all sworn jurors are present. 
        THE COURT:  You may resume, Mr. Klotz 
        MR. KLOTZ: (Continuing) The past, they say, is prologue.  I'm 
                  hoping that our prologue exceeds in duration the main 
                  event.  Let's proceed from the prologue to the main 
                  Count One of the indictment, The Grand Jury of the 
                  Country of New York accuses -- as the judge says, 
                  it's a piece of paper, it's the context with what  
                  you're here for -- and accuse the defendant of the 
                  attempt to commit the crime of coercion in the 
                  First Degree.  

                  The judge will talk to you about coercion and an 
                  attempt to commit coercion in the Second Degree.  
                  As written, it's First Degree; you have the right 
                  to find a lesser included offense under the right 
                  It alleges that Cohn was employed as an attorney 
                  at the law firm of Saxe, Bacon & Bolan until 
                  approximately February of 1979.  That's the alle-
                  gation, the defendant was legally represented by 
                  Saxe, Bacon & Bolan and that in or about February 
                  of  1979, that's the allegation, Saxe, Bacon & 
                  Bolan,  P.C. terminated legal representation of 
                  the defendant.  Whereupon the defendant attempted 
                  to compel and induce Roy Cohn to engage in conduct 
                  which the later had a legal right to abstain from 
                  to wit, representing the defendant by means of 
                  attempting to instill in Roy Cohn the fear that if 
                  the command was not met, the defendant would cause 
                  damage to the property of Saxe, Bacon & Bolan.  
                  That's the allegation, by conduct calculated 
                  intended to adversely and affect the business 
                  relationships of Saxe, Bacon & Bolan and its 
                  clients, business and banking affiliates.  That's 
                  the charge of Count One. 
                  As a matter of fact, the judge will instruct you 
                  on the lesser included offense another offense, 
                  attempt to commit the crime of coercion in the 
                  Second Degree except that the threat is not to 
                  damage the property at Saxe, Bacon & Bolan, but 
                  would be to expose a secret or to embarrass some-
                  body or to act in a way calculated to harm another 
                  for no good purpose or without benefit to the 
                  person making the threat. 
                  The judge will instruct you on the element accord-
                  ing to law and this is only for defense analysis.  
                  But the key factors are: 
                  Termination: the allegation is that in or about 
                  February of '79 there was a termination of repre-
                  Threat, that Dupont threatened Cohn thereafter, 
                  after February of '79 and said if you guys don't 
                  take this case-- words to that effect -- if you 
                  don't take this case back I'm going to destroy the 
                  property of Saxe, Bacon & Bolan and I'm going to 
                  do things that are going to hurt Saxe, Bacon & 
                  Bolan's clients and banking affiliates. 
                  There are two parts to the threat.  First there's 
                  the part which said you must do this or else.  And 
                  then there's the "or else," I will do so and so. 
                  As to those elements, the burden of proof is on 
                  the prosecution and they must be proved beyond a 
                  reasonable doubt. 
                  Without beating a dead horse, Cohn told you under 
                  oath and he called Richard: "I told Richard we are 
                  no  longer going to represent you," (except as to 
                  peripheral matters, or loose ends. I'll get to 
                  that) and here's why:  "You told Zucker you gave 
                  him seventy-five thousand dollars."  Bunk -- "you 
                  told us you gave him seventy-five thousand dol-
                  lars."  Bunk!!  
                  We've been through that already.  The only allega-
                  tion Saxe, Bacon & Bolan had in front of it in 
                  terms of giving Zucker money or giving money was 
                  the fifty- seven thousand dollars.  What Dupont 
                  had said is that I had seventy-five thousand 
                  dollars to buy the building, but I let Zucker bid 
                  in on his promise.  He never said $75,000.  Not 
                  reflected in the legal papers.  That's bunk. 
                  "Didn't pay a dime's rent.  You've been in the 
                  building collecting memberships and you never paid 
                  a dime's rent." 
                  Bunk.  Schwartz, the receiver, sued for rent.  He 
                  did not receive two years, three years of rent 
                  when the court ordered the payment of use and 
                  occupancy, it ordered ten thousand dollars when 
                  there was fourteen hundred dollars a month due.  
                  Never paid a dime's rent.  Bunk! 
                  Other things: "the Attorney General.  My God, the 
                  Attorney General had an order against you and 
                  we've just discovered this." 
                  Come on.  They were representing Dupont in front 
                  of the Attorney General.  David Tackett reported 
                  to Cohn before February of '78, before February of 
                  '78 when he moved to Florida, David Tackett re-
                  ported to Cohn Dupont's legal problems.  And now a 
                  year later, "my God, Richard, we found out these 
                  terrible things, you're an awful person.  Gillis I 
                  think was there in '76, the first time and we've 
                  seen how Gillis reports to Cohn.  That Richard 
                  used other names was another thing given by Cohn. 
                  Now, all this came in, if you may remember, after 
                  Mr. Dupont's attorney stood up and withdrew an 
                  objection to the conversation.  Okay?  And I 
                  suppose you're paid to make a decision, some of 
                  this essentially scandalous material, allegations 
                  by Roy Cohn, things  he didn't have first hand 
                  knowledge of, I suppose we  could have limited 
                  carefully what Cohn said.  But if we did that, I 
                  wouldn't be able to stand here before you right 
                  now and say bunk to everything he said and trust-
                  ing you to look at your responsibility to under-
                  stand this is what Cohn is spewing out on the 
                  witness stand as to the reason that he allegedly 
                  gave Richard Dupont for terminating the relation-
                  ship except that under oath he told the Grand Jury 
                  that Richard had called him. 
                  Is that a small point?  In the context of a law 
                  firm severing relationship?  Who called who?  Cohn 
                  so explicit as to the contents of that conversa-
                  tion.  After he heard me withdraw the objection 
                  and knowing what I had done, I think he's a good 
                  lawyer, no question about that, a good lawyer in 
                  terms of cleverness and experience, he merely 
                  spewed forward every piece of garbage he can think 
                  of to get into this record and get before you. 
                  Tough decision relying upon you to honor your oath 
                  and understand that this is hearsay, these are 
                  things he's repeating, these are reasons he's 
                  Because knowing I was going to stand before you 
                  now and say to you they're bunk, they're nonsense.  
                  The telephone conversation did not take place at 
                  all because when we go beyond Mr. Cohn's testimony 
                  and we look at the pieces of paper again that are 
                  in evidence, there is no way that Saxe, Bacon & 
                  Bolan terminated their relationship, their lawyer-
                  client relationship with Mr. Dupont in February of 
                  1979.  And the Court will issue instructions as to 
                  the law to be applied in this trial as to time of 
                  termina tion, but it comes back to, do you believe 
                  that Roy Cohn called as he swore to you, or even 
                  was called by Richard as he swore to the Grand 
                  Jury and spewed forth in a single neat compact 
                  conversation this information most of which is 
                  disputed by the physical evidence of the case. 
                  Now, then did this conversation take place?  I 
                  referred to that before.  One thing we do know, it 
                  took place before April, if it took place.  You 
                  know, we're in existential void here, the conver-
                  sation is disputable certainly subject to reason-
                  able doubt.  If it took place -- if it took place 
                  -- it had to take place before April of 1979 
                  because in April of 1979 Richard Dupont -- and he 
                  freely admits this -- paid a visit to Roy Cohn at 
                  the hospital with the wilted flowers.  He had 
                  given an expensive french desk, but apparently he 
                  couldn't give anything but wilted flowers. 

                  And Cohn testified, Cohn testified  -- and again, 
                  I hate to give credence to what Cohn testified to 
                  by merely repeating it, -- but Cohn said that 
                  Dupont said: "This is one time where you can't get 
                  away from me, I want you to take the case back, b-
                  a-c-k, take the case back."  Meaning that Cohn 
                  testifying in September of 1981 is telling you 
                  that in April of 1979 in the hospital Richard is 
                  asking him to take the case back because in Febru-
                  ary of 1979 he had told Richard that Saxe, Bacon & 
                  Bolan would not represent him anymore. 
                  Physical facts; the indictment says February -- 
                  oh, by the way, you remember that Cohn testified 
                  before the hospital visit to a whole series of 
                  conversations which changed in their tenor from 
                  oh, gee whiz, Roy, you don't really mean it to Roy 
                  I'm getting upset with you.  So the whole series 
                  of conversations between this conversation -- 
                  between the alleged and we believe fictitious -- 
                  we maintain fictitious conversation. 
                  Now, what's happening and what do the pieces of 
                  paper show?  February 20, 1979, Exhibit C in 
                  evidence, a complaint is prepared, subscribed by 
                  Saxe, Bacon & Bolan, P.C., you've already examined 
                  this once, February 27th, 1979, Richard Dupont 
                  appears at the offices of Saxe, Bacon & Bolan and 
                  verifies that complaint.  Verification is that 
                  process by which a client swears to the truthful-
                  ness of what's contained in the complaint.  Now 
                  Cohn tells the Grand Jury at the time of the 
                  conversation and this is -- we read it back to him 
                  and there's a conflict here -- "that I talked to 
                  him on the phone and I said that was it, Richard, 
                  period and thereafter we did not represent him at 
                  all or did not represent him."  He told you be-
                  cause probably by this time it's been brought to 
                  his attention, "oh, gee whiz, Roy, there's someth-
                  ing  happening." 
        MR. WILSON: I object. 
        THE COURT:  Sustained.  Strike that. 
        MR. KLOTZ:  (Continuing) He tells you about a year after he 
                  testified for the Grand Jury, well, there were some 
                  "loose ends."  "What are the loose ends, Mr. Cohn?"  I 
                  asked him on Cross Examination.  "I really don't recall 
                  anything in particular."  But the issue is:  did Saxe, 
                  Bacon & Bolan terminate? 
                  The complaint; Richard Dupont and Dupont Estates, 
                  Inc., vs. Donald Zucker and Donald Zucker, Inc.  
                  Suing Zucker for among other things, and you can 
                  read this yourselves, it's in evidence, $600,000 
                  for storage charges;  a million dollars for fraud 
                  by Zucker and this complaint was prepared in the 
                  latter part of February 1979.  You can't get much 
                  later than February 27th of 1979 and in fact, 
                  since 1979 is not a leap year, you can't get but 
                  one day later.  This could not by any stretch of 
                  the imagination  possibly be considered clearing 
                  up a loose end.  Or to put the burden of proof 
                  where it lies, it is certainly reasonable to 
                  conclude or it is certainly reasonable to think 
                  that termination did not occur in February because 
                  that cause of action was verified February 27th. 
                  Other things happened.  Let's go to the hospital 
                  visit.  We go the wilted flower syndrome again.  
                  Why does Cohn psychologically refuse to give 
                  Richard credit where credit is due under any 
                  circumstance?  Remember we played the tape record-
                  ing?  And Cohn was trying to say to Richard, 
                  "Richard, you do these terrible things, some of 
                  them are pretty funny like the time you came to 
                  the hospital."  Richard wasn't admitting anything.  
                  Later on Cohn says, well, "Richard, that was very 
                  funny when you came to the hospital but I don't 
                  think this is funny" and Richard proceeds to deny 
                  what he was talking about. 
                  The first time we played that for Mr. Cohn,we 
                  said, "Mr. Cohn, did you think the hospital visit 
                  was funny?"  He says "no, I thought it was 
                  strange."  The  second time we played it he says 
                  "I think it was  funny." His testimony in front of 
                  you was that the hospital visit was a terrible 
                  traumatic experience and Paul Dano said "I don't 
                  think this is funny" and threw Richard out and 
                  whatever happened to the wilted flowers? 
                  Pieces of paper; there's an order which we read 
                  into the court, April of 1979, an order is entered 
                  into the Dupont vs. Aaron Schwartz saying -- in 
                  effect, Dupont show up for an examination before 
                  trial or else.  Served upon Saxe, Bacon & Bolan. 
                  Important question; did Cohn schedule a meeting 
                  with Richard after the hospital visit?  If you 
                  believe Roy Con's testimony on termination, no way 
                  would Roy Cohn have consented to an appointment 
                  with Richard Dupont after the hospital visit if 
                  you believe Roy Cohn. 
                  And then we have Patricia Livermore's testimony, 
                  that snapshot of walking over to the townhouse 
                  with Richard on that day knowing Roy Cohn for 
                  thirteen, fourteen years years. No questions ever 
                  asked about that on Cross Examination.  But know-
                  ing Roy Cohn for thirteen or fourteen years and 
                  hearing Roy Cohn say, "Richard, come up and see me 
                  now."  You not only have to believe Roy Cohn 
                  beyond a reasonable doubt, you -- you have to hold 
                  that that little lady up there, no shown interest, 
                  no Cross Examination, is lying through her teeth.  
                  I don't think that's reasonable and I don't think 
                  that's fair. 
                  But I have other pieces of paper; May 23, 1979, 
                  Dupont verified an affidavit in opposition in the 
                  action Richard Dupont and Dupont Estates vs. 
                  Donald Zucker,.  Here's the paper, Saxe, Bacon & 
                  Bolan cover, from Saxe, Bacon & Bolan's files 
                  notarized by John Lang, the president of Saxe, 
                  Bacon & Bolan.  They terminated beyond a reason-
                  able doubt? 
                  Now, Richard did testify in June when he appeared 
                  for a deposition he was asked to consent to a 
                  change and he refused.  Reason, conflict of inter-
                  est.  Conflict?  It's in the record, Stanley 
                  Friedman was Roy Cohn's partner, Stanley Friedman 
                  was a politician.  Gillis  testified to the filing 
                  of plans by Zucker and knowledge of those plans.  
                  Richard has testified that they told him there was 
                  a conflict because of a variance.  Which testimo-
                  ny, Dupont or Cohn, is  verified by the pieces of 
                  paper that are in evidence? 
                  Let's come to the threat part of it.  June 27 -- 
                  first of all, the threat.  Cohn testified -- the 
                  threats.  And remember; if these threats do not 
                  measure up the indictment, whether you find it was 
                  nice of Richard to say this or not doesn't matter.  
                  You have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that 
                  these threats are what's alleged in the indictment 
                  because this is the only charge we have. 
                  Threats: what happened?  Cohn is testifying; "the 
                  calls continued and I would hang up quickly as I 
                  could.  He'd get in a couple of sentences and say 
                  around the middle of May, beginning of May [this 
                  is when we have testimony from Livermore indicat-
                  ing that Dupont's testimony concerning a meeting 
                  with Cohn was true]  middle of May sentences would 
                  get in, instead of pleading or asking me to take 
                  back the case [Cohn is testifying] that in the 
                  middle of May he had to take the case back," 
                  [that's before the execution of that document] "he  
                  started becoming unpleasant.  He  would say if I 
                  don't take this case back you and all of your 
                  friends and clients are going to be sorry.  Don't 
                  fool around with me and people like me who bring 
                  people down like you." 
                  Is that the threat alleged in the indictment? 
                  Shortly thereafter -- again we're doing it with a 
                  very clever attorney who knows precisely what the 
                  issues were.  Cohn testifies further' he refers to 
                  a date, the date they're referring to  I believe 
                  is the date of the telegram.  What happened?  Just 
                  prior to that date I would say a matter of days -- 
                  excuse me one second please. He got a telephone 
                  conversation from Dupont.  "I just wanted you to 
                  know I'm not kidding around.  You take that case 
                  and if you don't I have got money completed for a 
                  book, I'm going to say all sorts of things about 
                  you, you'll never be able to walk around New York, 
                  you and your friends are going to be destroyed, it 
                  has cartoons and pictures and he hung up." 
                  What did he say?  Just prior to that date I would 
                  say -- you recollection governs -- a matter of 
                  days, I would say prior to June of 1979, the other 
                  threat.  So Cohn is saying that before June of 
                  1979, before Dupont appeared at the deposition, 
                  that threat was made.  Again, is that threat 
                  alleged in the indictment?  If it's not, the 
                  verdict, no matter how much you think Mr. Dupont 
                  is guilty of things you don't like, might be 
                  harassing, might be a lesser included offense of 
                  threatening to expose Roy Cohn to ridicule or 
                  something of that sort, but it is not to destroy 
                  And the other point is not only is it not the 
                  threat, it is still before termination has oc-
                  curred.  And until termination has occurred, he 
                  may have been nasty, he might not have been nice.  
                  He may have been very upset, but he is not commit-
                  ting the crime in the first count which we are 
                  talking about. 
                  Then comes what is by every reasonable standard an 
                  insane telegram on June 26, 1979 -- June 22, 1979.  
                  It is in evidence as Exhibit Three and it is sure 
                  some telegram.  That telegram spoke about a book 
                  referred to Roy and their relationship as partn-
                  ers, describes some pretty bold obscene cartoons 
                  and says that a lot of people are going to be 
                  interested in it and you're going to be embar-
                  rassed.  Again, is it a  threat, in it's terms to 
                  property?  Has termination yet occurred? Because 
                  until you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the 
                  legal episode legal  representation had terminat-
                  ed, then the threats however nasty, however har-
                  assing they may even be, are not coercion, the 
                  First count.  Or they could even perhaps be the 
                  lesser included offense; revealing secrets and 
                  embarrassment.  But destroying property beyond a 
                  reasonable doubt, the threat I will destroy your 
                  property beyond a reasonable doubt. 
                  Now, quickly, that's where this testimony about 
                  threats on Cohn's part seems to end, your recol-
                  lection governs. 
                  On his opening statement, as I recall, Mr. Wilson 
                  had made some references to David Tackett and the 
                  information David Tackett may or may not have 
                  conveyed to Cohn about threats.  Please don't 
                  confuse what attorneys say in opening or summa-
                  tions with evidence.  I'm sure Mr. Wilson will say 
                  that to you too. 
                  Tackett never testified having told Cohn threaten-
                  ing things attributed to Mr. Dupont.  He never 
                  told Cohn, according to testimony now of  Cohn and 
                  Tackett, he never said to Cohn if you don't help 
                  Richard Dupont, Richard Dupont has told me he will 
                  destroy you.  That's not in Tackett's testimony 
                  and it's not even in Cohn's testimony.  That 
                  governs whether a threat occurred at that point 
                  and by now we're in the Fall of 1979 and it's 
                  really irrelevant whether termination has yet 
                  occurred because we are so far beyond that clean 
                  crisp detailed conversation of February 1979 where 
                  Cohn maintains he terminated.  I think the facts 
                  say it's got to be a lie.  We're so far beyond 
                  that, that whatever happened thereafter is really 
                  irrelevant to the first count of coercion. 
        MR. WILSON: I object, you Honor.  That is not the case, anything 
                  after the fall of '79 is irrelevant. 
        MR. KLOTZ:  I withdraw the phrase irrelevant. That in terms of an 
                  act of termination you have to listen to the Court's 
                  instructions.  But the indictment says February of  
                  To recapitulate; Cohn either lied to the Grand 
                  Jury or to you when he told the Grand Jury there 
                  was no pending matters and when he told you there 
                  were loose ends.  In fact, he lied to both of you 
                  because those loose ends were a major lawsuit 
                  against Donald Zucker for over a million dollars, 
                  there's no reasonable way that's a loose end. 
                  He saw Richard in the hospital and he admitted in 
                  a taped conversation that was a humorous visit, he 
                  told you it was some kind of gruesome ordeal. 
                  Richard said there was an appointment scheduled 
                  thereafter.  Miss Livermore, not cross examined, 
                  Miss Livermore verified Richard went to the town-
                  house to see Cohn sometime after April and that's 
                  COUNT TWO, the Grand Jury accuses Richard Dupont 
                  of burglary in the Third Degree in that on May 
                  27th he entered or remained unlawfully in the 
                  office of Rangely Realty located at 60 East 42nd 
                  street with intent to commit the crime of petit 
                  larceny.  Two crucial elements; an unlawful entry, 
                  and intent at the time of entry to commit a crime 
                  of petit larceny.  Unless you find beyond a rea-
                  sonable doubt that Dupont had formed the intention 
                  to steal when he entered, then I believe --
        MR. WILSON: I object. 
        THE COURT:  Sustained. 
        MR. KLOTZ:  (Continuing) Listen carefully --
        THE COURT:  The Court will instruct you on the law, not the 
        MR. KLOTZ:  (Continuing) But listen, intent at the time of entry 
                  beyond a reasonable doubt is one of the two principal 
                  issues.  You must find that intent beyond a reasonable 
                  doubt.  If you don't find intent beyond a reasonable 
                  doubt at the time the Court instructs you, he's not 
                  Dupont testified I went there to look at some 
                  files.  We already know Gillis was his partner in 
                  terms of 644 Greenwich Street or Gillis was on 
                  that contract for 10%.  Whether you find that an 
                  attempt to look at the files was a nice thing or 
                  not, it's not an intent  to steal and you must 
                  find that at the time, crucial time as instructed 
                  by the Court, he had formed that  intent. 
                  The other aspect is entry.  Now granted we're not 
                  talking about taking a crowbar and busting down 
                  the door, that's not necessary, would be wrong for 
                  me to tell you it was necessary and certainly 
                  would get an immediate objection because the 
                  question is really beyond a reasonable doubt the 
                  nature of those premises. 
                  Was this a place closed to the public or wasn't 
                  it?  Beyond a reasonable doubt.  Treadway testi-
                  fied the door was open, always open, never saw the 
                  doors close.  There was a public hallway between 
                  the two offices occupied by Rangely Realty. 
        MR. WILSON: Objection. 
        THE COURT:  This is a question of fact, the jury will rely upon 
                  it's recollection and if that which is communicated to 
                  you by the attorneys conforms with you recollection, 
                  fine, if not, rely upon you own.  If you have any doubt 
                  upon these items, you can call upon the Court to have 
                  the same read back to you. 
        MR. KLOTZ: (Continuing) There is a representation of the corridor 
                  EXHIBIT FOURTEEN.  There are two offices of Rangely 
                  Realty; an office, on EXHIBIT FOURTEEN, labeled Bob 
                  Treadway, and an office labeled Gillis' office.  One 
                  small point is that this, the corridor, which these 
                  offices both open on to was not, accord ing to Gillis' 
                  testimony, I believe, and your recollection does con-
                  trol, property rented by Rangely Realty Company.  It 
                  was property belonged to the overall suite.  And as a 
                  mater of fact, access to the xerox room from other 
                  people would be through that hallway, at least in part.  
                  Look at the diagram yourself, if you wish. 
                  Rangely Realty's name and Ed Gillis' name were on 
                  the directory of the building.  And in the file 
                  and marked in evidence is certainly the address of 
                  Rangely Realty on their letter head, anybody can 
                  go and look on the board and see where Rangely 
                  Realty was, there was a receptionist to direct 
                  people to Rangely Realty, the room was 1705.  Mr. 
                  Gillis testified that as a matter of fact people 
                  did on occasion stop by without appointments.  And 
                  this is a business.  This is a real estate busi-
                  ness, they circulate flyers, offering statements, 
                  are  circulated, they're in the file with their 
                  address on it. 
                  There's also a lesser included offense in that 
                  charge of trespass in the Third Degree.  If you 
                  find that he didn't have a right to enter, but he 
                  had the intent -- excuse me.  If you find that he 
                  didn't have the intent to commit a burglary but he 
                  didn't have the right to enter you could find 
                  guilty of a lesser included offense. 
                  Now, Treadway's testimony on the burglary charge 
                  and Dupont's testimony.  First of all, Dupont in 
                  one of the statements in evidence, Exhibit 12b, 
                  had given a statement to the District Attorney, 
                  that when he came up to the receptionist -- ques-
                  tion was asked by Mr. Wilson, page 48 "Were you or 
                  were you not asked whether you had an 
                  appointment?" and Dupont, with a statement in 
                  evidence now, "I was not asked whether or not I 
                  had an appointment."  "Were you asked whether you 
                  were expected?"  "I was not asked whether I was 
                  expected nor I don't remember exactly, no, but I 
                  don't think I was."  Wilson, "I see.  And you were 
                  escorted into Mr. Gillis' office by this individu-
                  Answer:  "No, I was not escorted." 
                  That's in keeping with Treadway's testimony by the 
                  way, because Treadway testified he had no advance 
                  knowledge of Richard coming until he as actually 
                  in the office. 
                  Now we originally had this -- again, reference to 
                  the EXHIBIT in court, Rangely Realty -- had this 
                  little difference of whether Richard had one foot 
                  in or one foot out, coffee in, briefcase out, or 
                  whatever, but Treadway pretty clearly established 
                  and Dupont when he thought about it pretty clearly 
                  testified that he entered and introduced himself 
                  as Mr. Richard, but he entered before he intro-
                  duced himself.  He had to,  couldn't stand in the 
                  doorway with one foot out an one foot in.  He 
                  walked inside.   The door was open. 
                  You would have to find beyond a reasonable doubt 
                  that he had no right to do that.  The Court will  
                  instruct  you. 
                  Third Count; what happens inside?  Treadway in his 
                  original testimony when he ran off the whole long 
                  thing testified "this guy Richards called, asked  
                  about Zucker, I went in I got the file I saw 
                  Zucker's name on a piece of paper," (that being 
                  this yellow piece of paper by the way identified 
                  by Mr. Treadway I believe) and told him there 
                  wasn't anything there.  I left the file on my 
                  desk.  Richards appeared without appointment.  I 
                  went and got that file, brought it back.  He asked 
                  me for another file, 39 East 68th Street, -- this 
                  was the original testimony -- I went and pulled 
                  that file out, I thumbed through, I saw two pieces 
                  of fancy stationery attached to something that 
                  said "Friedman-Roth Realty Corp." 
                  He identified this piece of paper, EXHIBIT 16E as 
                  what is attached to the fancy stationary.  An 
                  empty Saxe, Bacon & Bolan envelope also being in 
                  the file.  Friedman and Roth paper in the 39 East 
                  68th Street file, the townhouse, concerns 644 
                  Greenwich Street.  He stated after he had given 
                  this to Dupont he thumbed through it and noticed 
                  that from the 39 East 68th Street file, the fancy 
                  paper was missing and he sat there and talked to 
                  Dupont for a  half hour or some period of time 
                  after that. 
                  He also testified to a third trip. On cross exami-
                  nation bringing to his attention various other 
                  statements, he changed his story.  And it wasn't 
                  three distinct trips; I got both files at once.  
                  He gets both files at once, the whole thing crum-
                  bles.  This is a case of circumstantial evidence.  
                  He did not see Dupont remove those papers.  You 
                  have to establish first on Treadway's testimony 
                  that beyond a reasonable doubt Treadway saw those 
                  papers in there.  And you want to know who told us 
                  that in no way could Treadway have seen those 
                  papers in there, the 39 East 68th Street file?  Ed 
                  Gillis.  Ed Gillis testified that in no way was 
                  there -- was the Friedman and Roth paper in this 
                  file.  Your recollection will govern.  Pretty 
                  clear that's what Gillis testified to. 
                  Circumstantial evidence.  Gillis then testified to 
                  a whole slew of other papers that he said should 
                  have been in the file and missing, papers in, 
                  papers out.  One paper in the 39 East 68th Street, 
                  Fred Hill, this yellow piece of paper, he had no 
                  idea how it got in the file, doesn't know where it 
                  came from, without total speculation shouldn't 
                  have been in the file.  Other papers in the file, 
                  someone must have put it in there, trying to put 
                  it on Richard. 
                  But the clear conflict is that the very papers 
                  that Treadway tried to claim or indicate through 
                  circumstantial evidence that Richard stole, are 
                  papers which Gillis testified that were not in 
                  that file.  And he went through a whole litany of 
                  other papers that should have been in there that 
                  were not testified to by Treadway, and Treadway's 
                  confession - - everybody likes to debate with 
                  attorneys -- "well, things get misfiled."  You 
                  have to find beyond a  reasonable doubt, you have 
                  to resolve the Treadway and Gillis total conflict. 
                  Richard mentioned in direct examination that he 
                  saw a paper or something where Dry Dock Savings 
                  Bank, he knew something about Dry Dock Savings 
                  Bank and  there's no paper in here about a Dry 
                  Dock Savings Bank.  He said that a year ago, the 
                  very time he had  said he didn't steal anything. 
                  Gillis testified the first time he knew about his 
                  is when Richard called him and he called Treadway 
                  and Treadway came to his office.  Treadway testi-
                  fied he called Gillis.  All of a sudden those 
                  little things about who makes what calls becomes 
                  important.  Circumstantial evidence; other expla-
                  nations, not eliminated by the proof. 
                  Fourth the telephone count.  Did Richard Dupont 
                  attempt to steal money?  Now, that's the charge.  
                  The charge is not that he billed the calls, that 
                  by billing the calls or whoever billed the calls 
                  -- that by billing the calls, Richard attempted to 
                  steal cash.  In other words, the person who had 
                  made the calls without authority. 
                  Ellen McGrath testified.  First of all, she didn't 
                  testify to any lack of authority on anybody's part 
                  your recollection is going to govern on that.  But 
                  she testified that she took a portion of the  
                  bills, talked to John Lang, made a mark, unex-
                  plained, told the Telephone  Company, every marked 
                  call we denied.  No, she questioned them, but they 
                  didn't want to pay them.  Every marked call. 
                  She also testified that some of those calls were 
                  from a number which we know is Howard Pfeffer's 
                  number.   Some of those marked calls were from 
                  Dupont's number.  No distinction between Pfeffer 
                  and Dupont in her testimony,  None.  We know that 
                  Saxe, Bacon & Bolan didn't pay for any of those 
                  calls for whatever reason.  No distinction was 
                  made between Pfeffer and Dupont. 
                  Richard said on numerous occasions, said Pfeffer. 
                  Tackett testified making calls from Richard's 
                  apartment, that Pfeffer and Tackett made those 
                  calls.  Pfeffer now comes all the way from Los 
                  Vegas, Nevada to tell us he never made any calls, 
                  calls which Saxe, Bacon & Bolan had not yet paid 
                  for.  But that he had authority, even though Saxe, 
                  Bacon & Bolan hasn't paid for those calls.  His 
                  authority comes form Roy Kulchak -- because he was 
                  a para legal. 
                  To find Richard guilty of this count on Howard 
                  Pfeffer's testimony, you're going to find him 
                  guilty because of the lack of authority for those 
                  calls were made by him.  He committed the primary 
                  mistake of paying of paying for them.  What other 
                  distinction is there between Pfeffer and Dupont 
                  except that Dupont paid for the calls made on his 
                  own phone and Pfeffer's statement he had authori-
                  ty.  No one from Saxe, Bacon & Bolan testified to 
                  lack of authority.  Miss McGrath only testified as 
                  to questioning certain calls including Pfeffer's 
                  calls with the telephone company and asking where 
                  they were from.  If there was a difference between 
                  Pfeffer and Dupont, it's not shown by anything 
                  Saxe, Bacon & Bolan did in this record. 

                  The Sixth Count, harassment, of Ellen McGrath.  I 
                  don't want to kill that count.  I can see it's 
                  getting late, but there is no question that Ellen 
                  McGrath and Richard had a relationship of some 
                  kind.   Not an intimate relationship, but a 
                  friendly rela tionship.  That Richard had met 
                  Ellen McGrath.  By the way, interesting point, 
                  Richard met Ellen Mcgrath after Ellen McGrath came 
                  to work at Saxe, Bacon & Bolan in the Spring of 
                  1979, well after February of '79, she was in the 
                  building with John Lang when John Lang notarized 
                  this May 27th affidavit. 
                  I skipped the fifth count, it's June Osbourne.  
                  Dupont admits talking to June Osbourne, admitted 
                  it to Mr. Wilson over a year ago.  Miss Osbourne 
                  is there to receive complaints.  He called to pass 
                  on information to her.  By her own testimony, it 
                  was passed on to the people under whose respon-
                  sibility that type of investigation would be 
                  conducted.  No one else from Manufacturers Hanover 
                  testified as to those calls.  
                  We are only left with Dupont making -- presenting 
                  information to the person who was charged with 
                  taking information and that's aggravated harass-
                  ment.  And he specifically told us he did use a 
                  different name and he told her please don't tell 
                  Saxe, Bacon & Bolan about this complaint.  He 
                  wanted anonymity.  I don't think a desire for 
                  anonymity on that date is harassment.  The fact is 
                  that the content of the call is precisely what 
                  Mrs. Osbourne was there to hear and then to pass 
                  on to the appropriate investigative authority. 
                  Seventh Count.  Now the Seventh count and the 
                  Tenth Count involved the Greenwich Police. Dupont 
                  denies making the call.  You are the arbiter of 
                  fact in that case.  I think the fact that the 
                  caller spelled the name Cohn is now leaped upon as  
                  a very important factor in the case of that tele-
                  phone call.  I guess it's a little like being 
                  polite.  Someone spelled out the name, that means 
                  it was Richard.  I don't think that everybody who 
                  spells out the name on a telephone call is Richard 
                  Dupont and I don't think that everybody who was 
                  polite on the telephone was Richard Dupont.  The 
                  only person who identified that voice on the phone 
                  was Roy Cohn. 
                  Eighth Count, Now East.  Now we played a little 
                  game with Now East.  All this great testimony 
                  about the cover and telephone calls.  If there 
                  ever was any proof that Richard Dupont was not the 
                  initiator of Now East in any way, substantial way, 
                  any criminal way, it's this note on Exhibit 43, 
                  "enclosed payment  for the first month we'll be in  
                  contact Monday,  Howard."  And there has been 
                  identified as Exhibit T2 in evidence, Dupont's 
                  handwriting, no contrary exemplars were demanded 
                  or taken or are before you and the note on the 
                  cover is not Richard's handwriting on the evidence 
                  before you.   
                  Somebody else arranged that service and Mrs. Mayo 
                  never attempted to identify Richard's voice.  And 
                  the connection is supposed to be that phone call 
                  to Peter Manso.  But I would suggest to you that 
                  Manso had told other people of his interest, 
                  including the man who was one of Roy Cohn's em-
                  ployees, of his interest in obtaining Now East. 
                  The public notice concerning Studio 54, Mrs. 
                  Pelletier, that's another count. Mrs. Pelletier -- 
                  again, are we going to convict Richard Dupont 
                  because someone else was polite on the telephone?  
                  She couldn't identify his voice. 
                  Tenth Count, that's a restatement under another 
                  theory of the call to the Greenwich Police Depart-
                  The Eleventh Count, that Dupont knew that Pfeffer 
                  was going to testify at a Grand Jury hearing and 
                  tampering with him essentially.  
                  First of all, there is no evidence of, other than, 
                  the most circumstantial kind, as to Dupont knowing 
                  Pfeffer was going to testify at the Grand Jury.  
                  Pfeffer never said  that when he testified.  He 
                  said I called up Dupont and asked who was this 
                  Wilson guy and I got a long spiel.  Dupont told me 
                  if I went to  New York, I, because of the phone 
                  calls -- they would arrest me and try to sweat it 
                  out of me.  
                  By the way, when it comes to tampering, whether 
                  you believe that or not, who was the person who 
                  talked Pfeffer out of going?  Did you hear what he 
                  said?  His wife.  You can check it out in the 
                  transcript if you want.  "After I talked to 
                  Richard, I talked to my wife," (said she didn't 
                  say Wilson's crazy or Cohn is crazy,) she said 
                  "Richard's crazy don't get involved." That was 
                  Pfeffer's testimony.  Your recollection governs 
                  but I'm pretty sure about that.  You can check if 
                  your recollection's different, if you want to. 
                  I may be going a little overboard in telling you 
                  to check this or check that.  The judge will tell 
                  you it's a rather complex process and really 
                  truly, with exception to the written documents, 
                  your recollection governs everything, everything 
                  of what the evidence -- of what the testimony was. 
                  Now we come to that last count.  The last count is 
                  simple harassment, it's different from the aggra-
                  vated harassment and it simply says that from 
                  February '79 -- February of 1979 until October 
                  29th, 1980 with intent to harass, annoy, alarm 
                  another person Dupont engaged in acts which caused 
                  -- engaged in a course of conduct and repeatedly 
                  committed acts which alarm and seriously annoyed 
                  such other person, Roy M. Cohn, with no legitimate 
                  The allegation is with no legitimate purpose.  
                  It's like a Chinese menu -- almost or a multiple 
                  choice question.  The last count of the indict-
                  ment.  You go through the indictment, check all of 
                  the above.  Every action thus far in the counts 
                  are included, I guess, the Court will instruct 
                  you.  But all of the above.  These he's admitted, 
                  those he's denied. 
                  Other testimony included oh, the Western Union-- 
                  the Ford Motor thing, Richard's supposed to have 
                  originated the slogan "Roy Cohn can lick anyone". 
                  There may be  double entendre to that.  That's 
                  also the man Roy Cohn, the legal executioner. 
                  Other counts in the indictment are poured into 
                  this.  The Telephone calls to Russell Herd, I 
                  guess, that's included.  Again, Cohn eavesdropped 
                  on a telephone conversation where I guess Richard 
                  said --I can't recall the testimony in detail -- 
                  watch out for Roy Cohn.  May be good advice from 
                  Richard's viewpoint. 
                  The public notice which is Pelletier, another 
                  public notice involving an auction and I want you 
                  to look at that public auction notice, Saxe, Bacon 
                  & Bolan's name isn't on that public notice, just 
                  Studio 54.  Again Pelletier's testimony, she 
                  didn't even take that ad and somehow they're 
                  trying to drag it in.  She just had a conversation 
                  which she thinks may have been about it. Remember 
                  her testimony, a whole different situation.  But 
                  that's in there. 
                  By the way, going, back to the alarm, let's talk 
                  about the Greenwich Police Department one more 
                  time because it's also a part of what we're talk-
                  ing about, harassment.  Cohn testified that he was 
                  having a dinner party, that night.  

                  Set the scene. Dinner Party including some asso-
                  ciates of people who may be close.  They're at the 
                  dinner party and suddenly the phone rings.  All 
                  right.  Now the telephone company meters time on 
                  phone calls.  Kevin McCarthy goes to the phone, 
                  picks up the phone, the meter is ticking.  Cohn 
                  then says that McCarthy motioned me to pick up an 
                  extension, the meter is still ticking through all 
                  of that and a conversation ensued between Richard 
                  and McCarthy which Cohn overheard.  McCarthy never 
                  came in to testify, by the way.  
        MR. WILSON: I object. 
        MR. KLOTZ: I have a right to comment on that. 
        THE COURT:  I think you do too.  Objection overruled. 
        MR. WILSON: I would ask the Court to instruct both parties have 
                  equal opportunities to bring in witnesses. 
        MR. KLOTZ: (continuing) I would point out he's an employee of Roy 
        THE COURT:  Is or isn't? 
        MR. KLOTZ:  Is your Honor. 
        THE COURT: He's also available to both sides. 
        MR. KLOTZ:  Yes 
        THE COURT: Let me just mop this up here.  A party had no obliga-
                  tion to bring someone in unless he can testify as to 
                  some key aspect of the case  If one has other witnesses 
                  or other evidence to that effect, there's no obligation 
                  to that cumulative evidence.  No inferences can be 
                  drawn there upon.  You needn't bring in everyone. 
        Continue please. 
        MR. KLOTZ:  (Continuing)  The only person who testified to that 
                  phone call is, again, Roy Cohn, testified to a conver-
                  sation.  Now, the bill shows that that phone call 
                  lasted only one minute -- no , strike that.  Dupont 
                  admitted calling that night to Greenwich, to Cohn's 
                  house asking for somebody and then when that person 
                  wasn't there hanging up, not an extended conversation.  
                  The bill shows the call lasted a minute or less.  Every 
                  phone call appears as at least a minute on the bill, 
                  but it means up to a minute. I would suggest that 
                  that's one circumstance that may indicate that mr. 
                  Cohn's testimony is a fantasy in that regard. 
                  Now we come to distribution of Now East which is 
                  also included in an earlier count.  How many 
                  people testified to seeing Richard Dupont distrib-
                  ute Now East?  One, just one.  The only testimony 
                  of Richard Dupont handing out Now East is from Roy 
                  Richard Dupont testified and has stated over and 
                  over that he delivered Now East to members of the 
                  Maybe that brings us to the nub of the problem.  
                  Many acts alleged on Richard's part, he admits 
                  openly and frankly doing certain things like 
                  calling June Osbourne.  He talked to Ellen Mc-
                  Grath, there is no question about that.  He went 
                  to the birthday party when it was opened to the 
                  public late in the evening.  Every act which is 
                  included in the thirteenth -- twelfth count, the 
                  last count, to be a criminal must  be found beyond 
                  a reasonable doubt to have no legitimate purpose. 
                  But there are other actions of Richard that cer-
                  tainly annoy and harass Roy Cohn that were in this 
                  case and  mentioned to you that are not a part of 
                  the prosecution's case and when it comes to dis-
                  cussing legitimate purpose, of the things Richard 
                  did that are a part of the prosecution case, but 
                  are before you in evidence, are nearly, if not 
                  more, important than the things that are.  Twice 
                  -- well, three times -- but two times particularly 
                  stuck in my mind when Roy Cohn really blew up 
                  during Cross Examination. 
                  First time or one of the times I asked him if he 
                  had seen Richard Dupont at the Rubell-Schraeger 
                  sentencing, Studio 54 sentencing, and he first 
                  said no.  Then I asked him whether he had seen a 
                  gentlemen named Joseph Wershba, an executive 
                  producer of CBS, 60 Minutes, and he said yes and 
                  then he began to say I think I may have seen 
                  Richard.  Memory refreshed.  Then I asked him if 
                  at that date January 18, 1980, three days before 
                  the public notice appeared in the New York Times 
                  --before that time -- had he told Richard "Now 
                  you've really done it this time."  And Cohn al-
                  lowed as he might have said that, and Richard 
                  testified he did say it.  No denial of him saying 
                  Cohn also admitted -- oh, then he blew.  He blew 
                  because I said to him why would you say that.  
                  What had he really done and he said because "It 
                  was ghoulish for Richard to have come to the 
                  Rubell-Schraeger sentencing," or words to that 
                  effect.  That Richard, you know, he was upset with 
                  Richard -- it was a "ghoulish" thing, he was a 
                  "ghoul" to have done some thing like that.  There 
                  were two or three hundred people in the courtroom.  
                  But the one picked out to be the ghoul was Richard 
                  Then I asked him another question. "Are you aware 
                  that Richard spoke to the special prosecutor who 
                  was involved in that case." The special prosecu-
                  tor's involvement in that case is a part of that 
                  record in that there was an attempt to demonstrate 
                  and this is  why there was a special prosecutor, 
                  that presidential aide, Hamilton Jordan had been 
                  using cocaine at  Studio 54.  I asked Roy if he -- 
                  did he know that Dupont spoke to the special 
                  prosecutor.  Yes, Arthur Christy told me personal-
                  ly that he had been there.  That's from Cohn. 
                  Then Richard Dupont testified I think it's amply 
                  clear, that he had been called down to see Chris-
                  ty.  That's not a part of the case being presented 
                  to you for  criminal conduct. 
                  Second time he blew, second time he blew.  We're 
                  listening to the tape recording conversation and 
                  a chance reference was made to someone named Susan 
                  Grennig and who Susan Grennig is we'll go into a 
                  little more detail.  I said is that the Susan 
                  Grennig who worked at the parking lots in Chicago? 
                  And he blew again and said "no, no, no," and he 
                  said it a little more forcibly than I said it 
                  right now, I don't want to be carried out of here.  
                  He said "no, no, no, you got it all wrong.  Oh, I 
                  know what you're getting at.  Susan didn't work at 
                  the parking lot in chicago, she worked at the 
                  hotel in Chicago.  Russell worked at the parking 
                  lots in Chicago.  At least he did until you client 
                  called the railroad and repeated his lies.  They 
                  gave us 48 hours to get out." 
                  Why no allegation?  Doesn't that fit this indict-
                  ment.  Isn't it beautiful?  Richard Dupont called 
                  Chicago, told them lies and Dano and Cohn and 
                  Russell are thrown out of Chicago.  Oh, boy, 
                  that's a beautiful one.  That's harassment, boy, 
                  but that's not in front of you. 
                  A perfect case.  They brought Pfeffer from Nevada 
                  to testify.  The fact about Chicago shouldn't be a 
                  hard thing.  And Richard told them this over a 
                  year ago in his conversation. I got them out of 
                  Chicago, I called the railroad and told them they 
                  were double billing and they got kicked out.  
                  That's not charged.  Beyond a reasonable doubt on 
                  the last count you must find there was no legiti-
                  mate purpose. 
                  Richard testified to other harassing acts that 
                  have not been put in front of you.  He talked to 
                  the Daily  News and gave them a story which was 
                  converted into  part of a four part feature of the 
                  Daily News. 
                  The Philadelphia Bulletin, my recollection is that 
                  in the opening statement, Mr. Wilson may have made 
                  some reference to a telegram in the Philadelphia 
                  Bulletin, but it wasn't proven, wasn't presented 
                  to you as part of the prosecution's case.  
                  Who told you about the Philadelphia Bulletin? The 
                  defendant told you about the Philadelphia Bulletin 
                  and Pfeffer admitted, told you on Cross Examina-
                  tion, that the story about the mess at Universal 
                  Money Order was put in public by Richard Dupont by 
                  calling the Philadelphia Bulletin and putting the 
                  story in the Philadelphia Bulletin.  Pfeffer 
                  testified it was an accurate story. 
                  Chicago; Dano was there through his company; Susan 
                  Grennig.  Susan Grennig! Do you remember how many 
                  times her name came in and out of it.  Susan 
                  Grennig who we first meet picking up Richard's 
                  records for Saxe, Bacon & Bolan in connection with 
                  Richard's representation against Donald Zucker, 
                  that's the first time we meet Susan Grennig.  We 
                  met her another time.  I'm talking about chrono-
                  logical time, not in terms of testimony.  She was 
                  Ed Gillis's girl Friday before Treadway got the 
                  job and before she moved to Chicago.  Now she's 
                  back at Margo's. 
                  Russell the hairdresser; Big Gym; Chicago, Mar-
                  go's.  All the time close to Dano, living much of 
                  the time in Cohn's townhouse. 
                  Gillis, when he testified, had met the evening 
                  before at Margo's with Roy Cohn and scouts honor 
                  under oath:  "We never talked about my testimony."  
                  Do you believe that?  Do you really believe that 
                  Roy Cohn , an experienced competent litigator, 
                  criminal lawyer, competent defense of criminal 
                  cases would have sat down with Ed Gillis the night 
                  before his testimony at Margo's and not talk about 
                  what Ed Gillis was going to say in court the next 
                  day on a case Mr.  Cohn  obviously seemed to be 
                  some what interested in?  
                  And even poor Peter Manso.  Maybe with Mr. Manso's 
                  attitude toward defense counsel, I shouldn't say 
                  poor Peter Manso.  The man was hired by Playboy 
                  magazine to do a feature story on Roy Cohn.  Took 
                  their money for expenses, spent much of his time 
                  talking to Roy Cohn in Greenwich and Provincetown 
                  and other nice places, submitted a story which 
                  Playboy rejected, but then was picked up by Pent-
                  I guess that's a big success story.  Since that 
                  time or during that time he dines with Roy Cohn, 
                  meets Ed Gillis and Russell and the whole gang at 
                  Provincetown on holidays and he was invited by Roy 
                  Cohn personally to the opening of Margo's. 
                  Hail, hail, the gang's all here. 
                  A national figure.  Roy Cohn is a national figure 
                  who boasts of his image, "don't mess with Roy 
                  cohn, the legal executioner."  Dupont did and 
                  that's why we're here. 
                  You may find some of the things Richard said hard 
                  to believe.  You don't have to believe everything 
                  he said.  And I think based upon the documents in 
                  this case you have to believe, on his say so, very 
                  little of what he said.  And even if you don't 
                  believe him, that doesn't necessarily prove any-
                  thing.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution 
                  to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. 
                  Richard said he paid thousands of dollars and Cohn 
                  denied that he paid it.  Richard said that Cohn 
                  knew about this, all these facts from the very 
                  beginning, but Cohn denied it. 
                  Tackett, Dano to a certain extent, confirmed it, 
                  his own people.  Russell was there, fully report-
                  ed.  Richard said Cohn was involved as my partner, 
                  Cohn denied it.  But the contract, the money was 
                  Molin's testimony.  Richard said no order to show 
                  cause.  they didn't even give him time to move 
                  out.  There was no order to show cause.  Cohn said 
                  terminated, we terminated in February an upon that 
                  rock the First Count is founded and if you find  
                  reasonable grounds not to believe that termination 
                  in  February, the first count sinks like a rock.  
        MR. WILSON: I object. 
        THE COURT: Sustained.  I'll give you the law on that.  You'll 
                  take it from me and no one else. 
        MR. KLOTZ: (continuing)  Don't mess with Roy Cohn, the legal 
                  executioner.  Are we here because of Now East?  Balo-
                  ney.  We're here because Richard had the temerity to 
                  ignore that warning and mess with Roy Cohn.  We're here 
                  because it's been demonstrated that Richard Dupont 
                  somehow had divulged sources of infor mation at the 
                  hear of Roy cohn's empire of cash businesses.  Richard 
                  Dupont publicly revealed the cheating of Pfeffer and 
                  Skowron, not Pfeffer.  So Pfeffer is here testifying 
                  against Dupont.  You must find in the last count no 
                  legitimate  purpose. 
                  You saw Roy Cohn testify, you saw that face, star 
                  of the magazine covers.  
                  I suggest to you that when you looked at that 
                  face, you were looking at the face of very real 
                  evil.  Evil can be charming.  I mean if evil 
                  always came in a disgusting giuse it would easy to 
                  recognize, it wouldn't be a much of a threat, 
                  would it?  
                  Evil can be witty, nothing saying that evil people 
                  are dumb.  Evil can be cool, particularly when it 
                  marshals itself when it's vital interests are at 
                  stake.  The face of evil can be quick and sharp, 
                  and can be smarter than any lawyer Richard Dupont 
                  can get.  
                  But the face of evil is a face of evil. 
                  This isn't just Richard Dupont's journey to the 
                  brink of eternity, it's yours.  Everyone of the 
                  participants of this trial are in one way or 
                  another under oath.  Mr. Wilson, the judge, and 
        MR. WILSON: I object. 
        MR. KLOTZ:  It's not a plea for authority, your Honor. 
        THE COURT: I don't know if I know what that means. 
        MR. KLOTZ:  Your Honor, I'm just trying to say this is a very 
                  serious moment for all us us. 
        THE COURT:  Overruled. 
        MR. KLOTZ: (Continuing) All of us have taken an oath of office 
                  which is our obligation to fulfill and you have taken 
                  an oath.  Yes, you've got to convict Richard Dupont if 
                  you are satisfied, each of you individually satisfied 
                  beyond a reasonable doubt that Roy Cohn, the legal 
                  executioner, testified truthfully. 
                  His worst enemy sits before you, whatever his 
                  sins, they've got to be measured solely against 
                  that indictment.  Reasonable doubt about the story 
                  told by Cohn.  What does reasonable doubt mean to 
                  you? The Court will instruct you, but in the final 
                  analysis reasonable doubt is your province. 
                  This is as sacred moment for you as much this 
                  vulgar and profane society we live in can make any 
                  moment sacred. The oath makes it sacred.  A man 
                  cannot be convicted of a crime except by a verdict 
                  from a jury of his peers.  You are his peers. 
                  How you Honor that oath is something that you will 
                  have to live with. 
                  We've all done our best to present the facts to 
                  you.  I believe that if you honor your oath, that 
                  if you weigh whether the prosecution has met is 
                  burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the 
                  facts of the indictment, you will find there is 
                  reasonable doubt and that you will return a ver-
                  dict of not guilty to each and every count or will 
                  certainly weigh carefully the gravity of each and 
                  every count, particularly the first and second 
                  This is Richard's moment. 
                  This is your moment.  
                  My moment is over. 
        THE COURT: Members of the jury, take a five minute recess.  Do 
                  not discuss the case please. 
        (WHEREUPON, the jury leaves the jury box and exits the 

E-Mail: Return to Klotz Law Homepage